On 9/22/2016 10:29 AM, Vladyslav Buslov wrote: >> On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 19:23:47 +0100 >> Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit at intel.com> wrote: >> >>> On 9/21/2016 6:15 PM, Vladyslav Buslov wrote: >>>>> On 9/20/2016 7:36 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote: >>>>>> On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 21:16:37 +0300 Vladyslav Buslov >>>>>> <vladyslav.buslov at harmonicinc.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> @@ -123,6 +125,9 @@ static int __net_init kni_init_net(struct net >> *net) >>>>>>> /* Clear the bit of device in use */ >>>>>>> clear_bit(KNI_DEV_IN_USE_BIT_NUM, &knet- >>> device_in_use); >>>>>>> >>>>>>> + mutex_init(&knet->kni_kthread_lock); >>>>>>> + knet->kni_kthread = NULL; >>>>>>> + >>>>>> >>>>>> Why not just use kzalloc() here? You would still need to init the >>>>>> mutex etc, but it would be safer. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hi Vladyslav, >>>>> >>>>> This is good suggestion, if you send a new version for this update, >>>>> please keep my Ack. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> ferruh >>>> >>>> Hi Ferruh, Stephen, >>>> >>>> Could you please elaborate on using kzalloc for this code. >>>> Currently kni_thread_lock is value member of kni_net structure and >> never explicitly allocated or deallocated. >>>> Kni_kthread is pointer member of kni_net and is implicitly created and >> destroyed by kthread_run, kthread_stop functions. >>>> Which one of those do you suggest to allocate with kzalloc() and how >> would it improve safety? >>>> >>> >>> Currently: >>> >>> kni_init_net() { >>> knet = kmalloc(..); >>> .. >>> mutex_init(..); >>> knet->kni_thread = NULL; >>> } >>> >>> If you allocate knet via kzalloc(), no need to assign NULL to >>> kni_thread. Also this is safer because any uninitialized knet field >>> will be zero instead of random value. >>> >>> This is what I understood at least J >> >> Also any additional fields in knet will be set, avoiding any present or >> future >> uninitialized memory bugs. >> > > What about net_generic which is used instead of kmalloc in KNI code for newer > kernels? > Quick skim through Linux code indicates that it doesn't zero out memory and > people memset it manually.
You are right, for that path memset required. > Just add memset(0) in HAVE_SIMPLIFIED_PERNET_OPERATIONS code? > Yes, I think that is good. Thanks, ferruh