From: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>
To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
Cc: Kalle Valo <kvalo@adurom.com>,
Julian Calaby <julian.calaby@gmail.com>,
"John W. Linville" <linville@tuxdriver.com>,
linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] wireless: at76c50x: allocating too much data
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2012 15:19:22 +0200 (CEST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1204211518420.1987@hadrien> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120421124523.GS6498@mwanda>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 1236 bytes --]
On Sat, 21 Apr 2012, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 09:14:44PM +0300, Kalle Valo wrote:
>> Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 06:57:00PM +1000, Julian Calaby wrote:
>>>>> - struct mib_local *m = kmalloc(sizeof(struct mib_phy), GFP_KERNEL);
>>>>> + struct mib_local *m = kmalloc(sizeof(struct mib_local), GFP_KERNEL);
>>>>
>>>> Would it be better practice to use sizeof(*m)?
>>>>
>>>
>>> That was my temptation as well... But I decided to make it match
>>> with the surrounding code. I'm happy to resend if people want.
>>
>> IMHO sizeof(*m) is better and I tend to use it.
>>
>> Related to this: I have a bad habit of sometimes dropping '*' from
>> sizeof()? Is there a tool which could spot that?
>>
>
> That's what I was working on for Smatch when I sent this patch.
>
> The odd thing is that I can't find any bugs like this in the kernel.
> If sizeof(foo) is less than sizeof(*foo), which is probably the
> normal case, then these get caught early on in testing.
>
> Still I think people must have done manual audits as well... It
> feels too clean to be natural.
I sent some patches with respect to this. But that was probably around a
year ago.
julia
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>
To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
Cc: Kalle Valo <kvalo@adurom.com>,
Julian Calaby <julian.calaby@gmail.com>,
"John W. Linville" <linville@tuxdriver.com>,
linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] wireless: at76c50x: allocating too much data
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2012 13:19:22 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1204211518420.1987@hadrien> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120421124523.GS6498@mwanda>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 1269 bytes --]
On Sat, 21 Apr 2012, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 09:14:44PM +0300, Kalle Valo wrote:
>> Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 06:57:00PM +1000, Julian Calaby wrote:
>>>>> - struct mib_local *m = kmalloc(sizeof(struct mib_phy), GFP_KERNEL);
>>>>> + struct mib_local *m = kmalloc(sizeof(struct mib_local), GFP_KERNEL);
>>>>
>>>> Would it be better practice to use sizeof(*m)?
>>>>
>>>
>>> That was my temptation as well... But I decided to make it match
>>> with the surrounding code. I'm happy to resend if people want.
>>
>> IMHO sizeof(*m) is better and I tend to use it.
>>
>> Related to this: I have a bad habit of sometimes dropping '*' from
>> sizeof()? Is there a tool which could spot that?
>>
>
> That's what I was working on for Smatch when I sent this patch.
>
> The odd thing is that I can't find any bugs like this in the kernel.
> If sizeof(foo) is less than sizeof(*foo), which is probably the
> normal case, then these get caught early on in testing.
>
> Still I think people must have done manual audits as well... It
> feels too clean to be natural.
I sent some patches with respect to this. But that was probably around a
year ago.
julia
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-04-21 13:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-04-20 6:47 [patch] wireless: at76c50x: allocating too much data Dan Carpenter
2012-04-20 6:47 ` Dan Carpenter
2012-04-20 8:57 ` Julian Calaby
2012-04-20 8:57 ` Julian Calaby
2012-04-20 9:14 ` Dan Carpenter
2012-04-20 9:14 ` Dan Carpenter
2012-04-20 18:14 ` Kalle Valo
2012-04-20 18:14 ` Kalle Valo
2012-04-21 12:23 ` [patch v2] " Dan Carpenter
2012-04-21 12:23 ` Dan Carpenter
2012-04-21 12:45 ` [patch] " Dan Carpenter
2012-04-21 12:45 ` Dan Carpenter
2012-04-21 13:19 ` Julia Lawall [this message]
2012-04-21 13:19 ` Julia Lawall
2012-04-21 13:51 ` Julia Lawall
2012-04-21 13:51 ` Julia Lawall
2012-04-21 14:51 ` Dan Carpenter
2012-04-21 14:51 ` Dan Carpenter
2012-04-21 14:51 ` Julia Lawall
2012-04-21 14:51 ` Julia Lawall
2012-04-21 14:59 ` Dan Carpenter
2012-04-21 14:59 ` Dan Carpenter
2012-04-21 15:12 ` Dan Carpenter
2012-04-21 15:12 ` Dan Carpenter
2012-04-21 15:13 ` Julia Lawall
2012-04-21 15:13 ` Julia Lawall
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=alpine.DEB.2.02.1204211518420.1987@hadrien \
--to=julia.lawall@lip6.fr \
--cc=dan.carpenter@oracle.com \
--cc=julian.calaby@gmail.com \
--cc=kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=kvalo@adurom.com \
--cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linville@tuxdriver.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.