Hi Alexander,
On 4/1/19 4:40 PM, Alexander Duyck wrote:
>> @@ -333,8 +328,7 @@ static struct tnode *tnode_alloc(int bits)
>> {
>> size_t size;
>>
>> - /* verify bits is within bounds */
>> - if (bits > TNODE_VMALLOC_MAX)
>> + if ((BITS_PER_LONG <= KEYLENGTH) && unlikely(bits >= BITS_PER_LONG))
>> return NULL;
>>
>> /* determine size and verify it is non-zero and didn't overflow */
>
> I think it would be better if we left TNODE_VMALLOC_MAX instead of
> replacing it with BITS_PER_LONG. This way we know that we are limited
> by the size of the node on 32b systems, and by the KEYLENGTH on 64b
> systems. The basic idea is to maintain the logic as to why we are doing
> it this way instead of just burying things by using built in constants
> that are close enough to work.
>
> So for example I believe TNODE_VMALLOC_MAX is 31 on a 32b system.
This is also true after the change: bits == 31 will *not* return.
> The
> main reason for that is because we have to subtract the TNODE_SIZE from
> the upper limit for size. By replacing TNODE_VMALLOC_MAX with
> BITS_PER_LONG that becomes abstracted away and it becomes more likely
> that somebody will mishandle it later.
So, I wanted to remove run-time check here on x86_64..
I could do it by adding !CONFIG_64BIT around the check.
But, I thought about the value of the check:
I believe it's here not to limit maximum allocated size:
kzalloc()/vzalloc() will fail and we should be fine with that.
In my opinion it's rather to check that (1UL << bits) wouldn't result in UB.
Thanks,
Dmitry
