Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 15 May 2014 16:07:28 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: Add --strict test for kmalloc/kzalloc with multiply |
| |
On Thu, 15 May 2014 16:04:46 -0700 Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-05-15 at 15:58 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Tue, 13 May 2014 16:48:49 -0700 Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote: > > > Protect against sizeof overflows by preferring > > > kmalloc_array and kcalloc to kmalloc/kzalloc > > > with a sizeof multiply. > [] > > > +# check for k[mz]alloc with multiplies that could be kmalloc_array/kcalloc > > > + if ($^V && $^V ge 5.10.0 && > > > + $line =~ /\b($Lval)\s*\=\s*(?:$balanced_parens)?\s*(k[mz]alloc)\s*\(\s*($FuncArg)\s*\*\s*($FuncArg)/) { > > > + my $oldfunc = $3; > > > + my $a1 = $4; > > > + my $a2 = $10; > > > + my $newfunc = "kmalloc_array"; > > > + $newfunc = "kcalloc" if ($oldfunc eq "kzalloc"); > > > + if ($a1 =~ /^sizeof\s*\S/ || $a2 =~ /^sizeof\s*\S/) { > > > + CHK("ALLOC_WITH_MULTIPLY", > > > + "Prefer $newfunc over $oldfunc with multiply\n" . $herecurr); > > > + } > > > + } > > > + > > > > Why hide this behind --strict? > > Non-obvious CHK/--strict tests are less controversial. > > The block above it > "prefer foo = alloc(sizeof(*foo)) over foo = alloc(sizeof(struct bar))" > used CHK so I copied it. > > I've no objection to making it WARN instead,
I'd prefer that - this is one of my regular comment-on-during-review things.
| |