Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 11:40:03 -0800 From: Conrad Meyer <cem@freebsd.org> To: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: src-committers <src-committers@freebsd.org>, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r328218 - in head/sys: amd64/amd64 arm/xscale/ixp425 arm64/arm64 cam cam/ctl compat/ndis dev/aacraid dev/advansys dev/ath dev/beri/virtio dev/bnxt dev/bwn dev/ciss dev/cxgbe/crypto dev/... Message-ID: <CAG6CVpWTvE%2BFEpn2ScuoZG1je=c0xktnTO4iaO7ByZMLMU99xg@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CANCZdfqxRcsE8MMvnvh-JzHwyb8QZiDpSB9uJmty%2BFQBJqiKcw@mail.gmail.com> References: <201801211542.w0LFgbsp005980@repo.freebsd.org> <CAG6CVpXxuFyHS11rF=NF6bSSkC2=xnDh=WnbK-aWp4sOomrZ7w@mail.gmail.com> <51ff8aef-5660-7857-e4d5-12cdc77bc071@FreeBSD.org> <20180124182548.X1063@besplex.bde.org> <CANCZdfpL7t_J6xXi8w%2BwtxE%2B4x8EA0AzqzQKno=dUKaJ_NXFrw@mail.gmail.com> <CAG6CVpWv32FjZggRCM3JNWCsMDOSXbVzQfP-dh73fei6Hqr5Mw@mail.gmail.com> <1516817048.42536.182.camel@freebsd.org> <CAG6CVpUpVLe5f=As44TOyePDTy-7LaTKA=rCkk-NjZvZkA5nQg@mail.gmail.com> <CANCZdfqZ5ZiMceh7NZ-YpbgsTW6gqwcxVun0XM_bY2%2BFpustKQ@mail.gmail.com> <2aa48cbd-247a-66cd-b486-02ee77ec2e96@selasky.org> <c7e000e9-6a21-be3e-4037-80e715224f15@FreeBSD.org> <CAG6CVpVo6=e_n7oFWzPeWjq5u%2BG%2BwSV6JvpKF-q4fmxxEJ_MUA@mail.gmail.com> <CANCZdfqxRcsE8MMvnvh-JzHwyb8QZiDpSB9uJmty%2BFQBJqiKcw@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 11:27 AM, Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote: > > Which is why we should add check overflows for most of the no wait cases. > They should be checked, but not primarily with mallocarray... I don't understand what the distinction is here. Can you help me understand why the overflow check should be lifted from mallocarray into the caller for no wait cases? Or is that not what you're suggesting? Thanks, Conrad
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAG6CVpWTvE%2BFEpn2ScuoZG1je=c0xktnTO4iaO7ByZMLMU99xg>