From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wr0-f198.google.com (mail-wr0-f198.google.com [209.85.128.198]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B3826B0003 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2018 01:24:51 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-wr0-f198.google.com with SMTP id x97so2597648wrb.3 for ; Wed, 07 Mar 2018 22:24:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr. [192.134.164.104]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id l17si377231wrb.418.2018.03.07.22.24.48 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 07 Mar 2018 22:24:48 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 07:24:47 +0100 (CET) From: Julia Lawall Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm: Add kvmalloc_ab_c and kvzalloc_struct In-Reply-To: <20180308025812.GA9082@bombadil.infradead.org> Message-ID: References: <20180214182618.14627-1-willy@infradead.org> <20180214182618.14627-3-willy@infradead.org> <20180308025812.GA9082@bombadil.infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Matthew Wilcox Cc: Kees Cook , Andrew Morton , Matthew Wilcox , Linux-MM , LKML , Kernel Hardening , cocci@systeme.lip6.fr, Himanshu Jha On Wed, 7 Mar 2018, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Wed, Mar 07, 2018 at 10:18:21PM +0100, Julia Lawall wrote: > > > Otherwise, yes, please. We could build a coccinelle rule for > > > additional replacements... > > > > A potential semantic patch and the changes it generates are attached > > below. Himanshu Jha helped with its development. Working on this > > uncovered one bug, where the allocated array is too large, because the > > size provided for it was a structure size, but actually only pointers to > > that structure were to be stored in it. > > This is cool! Thanks for doing the coccinelle patch! Diffstat: > > 50 files changed, 81 insertions(+), 124 deletions(-) > > I find that pretty compelling. I'll repost the kvmalloc_struct patch > imminently. Thanks. So it's OK to replace kmalloc and kzalloc, even though they didn't previously consider vmalloc and even though kmalloc doesn't zero? There are a few other cases that use GFP_NOFS and GFP_NOWAIT, but I didn't transform those because the comment says that the flags should be GFP_KERNEL based. Should those be transformed too? julia