On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 9:02 PM, Leon Romanovsky <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 06:20:27PM +0300, Or Gerlitz wrote:
>> From: Roi Dayan <[email protected]>
>> @@ -425,11 +425,11 @@ struct mlx5_cmd_fc_bulk *
>> mlx5_cmd_fc_bulk_alloc(struct mlx5_core_dev *dev, u16 id, int num)
>> {
>> struct mlx5_cmd_fc_bulk *b;
>> - int outlen = sizeof(*b) +
>> + int outlen =
>> MLX5_ST_SZ_BYTES(query_flow_counter_out) +
>> MLX5_ST_SZ_BYTES(traffic_counter) * num;
>>
>> - b = kzalloc(outlen, GFP_KERNEL);
>> + b = kzalloc(sizeof(*b) + outlen, GFP_KERNEL);
>> if (!b)
>> return NULL;
> ^^^^^^^^^ very controversial decision.
> The code flow mlx5_fc_stats_query->mlx5_cmd_fc_bulk_alloc->kzalloc
> failure is the same for success scenario too.
Sure, we will look on your comment and if needed come up with a
cleanup patch for net-next (4.9)
> It is not related to the proposed patch.
Correct, the proposed patch fixes a memory corruption that we want to
sort out for net (4.8)
Or.
