[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 16/26] drm/i915/gvt: use array_size

[Dan Carpenter]

On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 11:26:55AM +0200, Andi Shyti wrote:
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/gtt.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/gtt.c
> > index 4ec85308379a..df52385ad436 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/gtt.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/gtt.c
> > @@ -1969,14 +1969,16 @@ static struct intel_vgpu_mm *intel_vgpu_create_ggtt_mm(struct intel_vgpu *vgpu)
> >  		return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> >  	}
> >  
> > -	mm->ggtt_mm.host_ggtt_aperture = vzalloc((vgpu_aperture_sz(vgpu) >> PAGE_SHIFT) * sizeof(u64));
> > +	mm->ggtt_mm.host_ggtt_aperture =
> > +		vzalloc(array_size(vgpu_aperture_sz(vgpu) >> PAGE_SHIFT, sizeof(u64)));
> >  	if (!mm->ggtt_mm.host_ggtt_aperture) {
> >  		vfree(mm->ggtt_mm.virtual_ggtt);
> >  		vgpu_free_mm(mm);
> >  		return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> >  	}
> >  
> > -	mm->ggtt_mm.host_ggtt_hidden = vzalloc((vgpu_hidden_sz(vgpu) >> PAGE_SHIFT) * sizeof(u64));
> > +	mm->ggtt_mm.host_ggtt_hidden =
> > +		vzalloc(array_size(vgpu_hidden_sz(vgpu) >> PAGE_SHIFT, sizeof(u64)));
> 
> thanks for this patch, but I see an issue here. array_size()
> truncates the allocation to SIZE_MAX, and I'm OK with it.
> 
> The problem is that no error is notified and the user doesn't
> know that a truncation has happened. So that if we save from an
> overflow here, we might encur to an unwanted access later when we
> would start using the array for the size we think is allocated.

SIZE_MAX allocations are guaranteed to fail, so the NULL check
will still return -ENOMEM.

> 
> kmalloc_array(), for example, returns NULL of there is a
> multiplication overflow and I think that's a better behaviour,
> although more drastic.

It's the same either way.

regards,
dan carpenter