| Message ID | 20200928192002.22733-1-machiry@cs.ucsb.edu |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [BlueZ] lib: Replace malloc/memset(..0..) with malloc0 | expand |
Gentle reminder! On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 12:30 PM <bluez.test.bot@gmail.com> wrote: > > This is automated email and please do not reply to this email! > > Dear submitter, > > Thank you for submitting the patches to the linux bluetooth mailing list. > This is a CI test results with your patch series: > PW Link:https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/bluetooth/list/?series=356715 > > ---Test result--- > > ############################## > Test: CheckPatch - PASS > > ############################## > Test: CheckGitLint - PASS > > ############################## > Test: CheckBuild - PASS > > ############################## > Test: MakeCheck - PASS > > > > --- > Regards, > Linux Bluetooth >
Hi Aravind, On Sat, Oct 3, 2020 at 11:14 AM Aravind Machiry <machiry@cs.ucsb.edu> wrote: > > Gentle reminder! > > On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 12:30 PM <bluez.test.bot@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > This is automated email and please do not reply to this email! > > > > Dear submitter, > > > > Thank you for submitting the patches to the linux bluetooth mailing list. > > This is a CI test results with your patch series: > > PW Link:https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/bluetooth/list/?series=356715 > > > > ---Test result--- > > > > ############################## > > Test: CheckPatch - PASS > > > > ############################## > > Test: CheckGitLint - PASS > > > > ############################## > > Test: CheckBuild - PASS > > > > ############################## > > Test: MakeCheck - PASS > > > > > > > > --- > > Regards, > > Linux Bluetooth There seems to be a mixture of malloc0 or bt_malloc0 when I guess the later should be preferred. -- Luiz Augusto von Dentz
Hi Luiz, Yes. Although bt_malloc internally uses malloc, there are a couple of places where bt_malloc is used instead of malloc. I was sticking to the convention of replacing malloc with malloc0 and bt_malloc with btmalloc0. I am not sure about any underlying reason for using malloc vs bt_malloc. If you think that bt_malloc/bt_malloc0 is the right way to go? I can go ahead and replace all occurrences of malloc/malloc0 with bt_malloc/bt_malloc0 respectively. Please do let me know. Btw, all the tests seem to pass when I did the replacement. -Best, Aravind On Sat, Oct 3, 2020 at 2:49 PM Luiz Augusto von Dentz <luiz.dentz@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Aravind, > > On Sat, Oct 3, 2020 at 11:14 AM Aravind Machiry <machiry@cs.ucsb.edu> wrote: > > > > Gentle reminder! > > > > On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 12:30 PM <bluez.test.bot@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > This is automated email and please do not reply to this email! > > > > > > Dear submitter, > > > > > > Thank you for submitting the patches to the linux bluetooth mailing list. > > > This is a CI test results with your patch series: > > > PW Link:https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/bluetooth/list/?series=356715 > > > > > > ---Test result--- > > > > > > ############################## > > > Test: CheckPatch - PASS > > > > > > ############################## > > > Test: CheckGitLint - PASS > > > > > > ############################## > > > Test: CheckBuild - PASS > > > > > > ############################## > > > Test: MakeCheck - PASS > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > Regards, > > > Linux Bluetooth > > There seems to be a mixture of malloc0 or bt_malloc0 when I guess the > later should be preferred. > > > > -- > Luiz Augusto von Dentz
Hi Aravind, On Sat, Oct 3, 2020 at 5:36 PM Aravind Machiry <machiry@cs.ucsb.edu> wrote: > > Hi Luiz, > > Yes. Although bt_malloc internally uses malloc, there are a couple of > places where bt_malloc is used instead of malloc. > > I was sticking to the convention of replacing malloc with malloc0 and > bt_malloc with btmalloc0. I am not sure about any underlying reason > for using malloc vs bt_malloc. > > If you think that bt_malloc/bt_malloc0 is the right way to go? I can > go ahead and replace all occurrences of malloc/malloc0 with > bt_malloc/bt_malloc0 respectively. > > Please do let me know. > > Btw, all the tests seem to pass when I did the replacement. Applied, thanks, note that I did replace the instances of malloc0 with bt_malloc0. > -Best, > Aravind > > > > > On Sat, Oct 3, 2020 at 2:49 PM Luiz Augusto von Dentz > <luiz.dentz@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hi Aravind, > > > > On Sat, Oct 3, 2020 at 11:14 AM Aravind Machiry <machiry@cs.ucsb.edu> wrote: > > > > > > Gentle reminder! > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 12:30 PM <bluez.test.bot@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > This is automated email and please do not reply to this email! > > > > > > > > Dear submitter, > > > > > > > > Thank you for submitting the patches to the linux bluetooth mailing list. > > > > This is a CI test results with your patch series: > > > > PW Link:https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/bluetooth/list/?series=356715 > > > > > > > > ---Test result--- > > > > > > > > ############################## > > > > Test: CheckPatch - PASS > > > > > > > > ############################## > > > > Test: CheckGitLint - PASS > > > > > > > > ############################## > > > > Test: CheckBuild - PASS > > > > > > > > ############################## > > > > Test: MakeCheck - PASS > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > Regards, > > > > Linux Bluetooth > > > > There seems to be a mixture of malloc0 or bt_malloc0 when I guess the > > later should be preferred. > > > > > > > > -- > > Luiz Augusto von Dentz -- Luiz Augusto von Dentz
diff --git a/lib/bluetooth.c b/lib/bluetooth.c index 0aecb50e1..84e40c819 100644 --- a/lib/bluetooth.c +++ b/lib/bluetooth.c @@ -173,6 +173,11 @@ void *bt_malloc(size_t size) return malloc(size); } +void *bt_malloc0(size_t size) +{ + return calloc(size, 1); +} + void bt_free(void *ptr) { free(ptr); diff --git a/lib/bluetooth.h b/lib/bluetooth.h index 1619f5f08..6994c037a 100644 --- a/lib/bluetooth.h +++ b/lib/bluetooth.h @@ -149,6 +149,8 @@ enum { BT_CLOSED }; +#define malloc0(n) (calloc((n), 1)) + /* Byte order conversions */ #if __BYTE_ORDER == __LITTLE_ENDIAN #define htobs(d) (d) @@ -349,6 +351,7 @@ int basprintf(char *str, const char *format, ...); int basnprintf(char *str, size_t size, const char *format, ...); void *bt_malloc(size_t size); +void *bt_malloc0(size_t size); void bt_free(void *ptr); int bt_error(uint16_t code); diff --git a/lib/sdp.c b/lib/sdp.c index a27cd3a7b..98624dcfc 100644 --- a/lib/sdp.c +++ b/lib/sdp.c @@ -345,12 +345,11 @@ sdp_data_t *sdp_data_alloc_with_length(uint8_t dtd, const void *value, uint32_t length) { sdp_data_t *seq; - sdp_data_t *d = malloc(sizeof(sdp_data_t)); + sdp_data_t *d = malloc0(sizeof(sdp_data_t)); if (!d) return NULL; - memset(d, 0, sizeof(sdp_data_t)); d->dtd = dtd; d->unitSize = sizeof(uint8_t); @@ -906,11 +905,10 @@ int sdp_gen_record_pdu(const sdp_record_t *rec, sdp_buf_t *buf) memset(buf, 0, sizeof(sdp_buf_t)); sdp_list_foreach(rec->attrlist, sdp_attr_size, buf); - buf->data = malloc(buf->buf_size); + buf->data = malloc0(buf->buf_size); if (!buf->data) return -ENOMEM; buf->data_size = 0; - memset(buf->data, 0, buf->buf_size); sdp_list_foreach(rec->attrlist, sdp_attr_pdu, buf); @@ -1030,12 +1028,11 @@ static sdp_data_t *extract_int(const void *p, int bufsize, int *len) return NULL; } - d = malloc(sizeof(sdp_data_t)); + d = malloc0(sizeof(sdp_data_t)); if (!d) return NULL; SDPDBG("Extracting integer"); - memset(d, 0, sizeof(sdp_data_t)); d->dtd = *(uint8_t *) p; p += sizeof(uint8_t); *len += sizeof(uint8_t); @@ -1105,13 +1102,12 @@ static sdp_data_t *extract_int(const void *p, int bufsize, int *len) static sdp_data_t *extract_uuid(const uint8_t *p, int bufsize, int *len, sdp_record_t *rec) { - sdp_data_t *d = malloc(sizeof(sdp_data_t)); + sdp_data_t *d = malloc0(sizeof(sdp_data_t)); if (!d) return NULL; SDPDBG("Extracting UUID"); - memset(d, 0, sizeof(sdp_data_t)); if (sdp_uuid_extract(p, bufsize, &d->val.uuid, len) < 0) { free(d); return NULL; @@ -1136,11 +1132,10 @@ static sdp_data_t *extract_str(const void *p, int bufsize, int *len) return NULL; } - d = malloc(sizeof(sdp_data_t)); + d = malloc0(sizeof(sdp_data_t)); if (!d) return NULL; - memset(d, 0, sizeof(sdp_data_t)); d->dtd = *(uint8_t *) p; p += sizeof(uint8_t); *len += sizeof(uint8_t); @@ -1183,13 +1178,12 @@ static sdp_data_t *extract_str(const void *p, int bufsize, int *len) return NULL; } - s = malloc(n + 1); + s = malloc0(n + 1); if (!s) { SDPERR("Not enough memory for incoming string"); free(d); return NULL; } - memset(s, 0, n + 1); memcpy(s, p, n); *len += n; @@ -1260,13 +1254,12 @@ static sdp_data_t *extract_seq(const void *p, int bufsize, int *len, { int seqlen, n = 0; sdp_data_t *curr, *prev; - sdp_data_t *d = malloc(sizeof(sdp_data_t)); + sdp_data_t *d = malloc0(sizeof(sdp_data_t)); if (!d) return NULL; SDPDBG("Extracting SEQ"); - memset(d, 0, sizeof(sdp_data_t)); *len = sdp_extract_seqtype(p, bufsize, &d->dtd, &seqlen); SDPDBG("Sequence Type : 0x%x length : 0x%x", d->dtd, seqlen); @@ -2740,12 +2733,11 @@ void sdp_uuid32_to_uuid128(uuid_t *uuid128, const uuid_t *uuid32) uuid_t *sdp_uuid_to_uuid128(const uuid_t *uuid) { - uuid_t *uuid128 = bt_malloc(sizeof(uuid_t)); + uuid_t *uuid128 = bt_malloc0(sizeof(uuid_t)); if (!uuid128) return NULL; - memset(uuid128, 0, sizeof(uuid_t)); switch (uuid->type) { case SDP_UUID128: *uuid128 = *uuid; @@ -3191,12 +3183,11 @@ int sdp_record_update(sdp_session_t *session, const sdp_record_t *rec) sdp_record_t *sdp_record_alloc(void) { - sdp_record_t *rec = malloc(sizeof(sdp_record_t)); + sdp_record_t *rec = malloc0(sizeof(sdp_record_t)); if (!rec) return NULL; - memset(rec, 0, sizeof(sdp_record_t)); rec->handle = 0xffffffff; return rec; } @@ -3731,23 +3722,21 @@ sdp_session_t *sdp_create(int sk, uint32_t flags) sdp_session_t *session; struct sdp_transaction *t; - session = malloc(sizeof(sdp_session_t)); + session = malloc0(sizeof(sdp_session_t)); if (!session) { errno = ENOMEM; return NULL; } - memset(session, 0, sizeof(*session)); session->flags = flags; session->sock = sk; - t = malloc(sizeof(struct sdp_transaction)); + t = malloc0(sizeof(struct sdp_transaction)); if (!t) { errno = ENOMEM; free(session); return NULL; } - memset(t, 0, sizeof(*t)); session->priv = t; @@ -4173,13 +4162,12 @@ int sdp_process(sdp_session_t *session) return -1; } - rspbuf = malloc(SDP_RSP_BUFFER_SIZE); + rspbuf = malloc0(SDP_RSP_BUFFER_SIZE); if (!rspbuf) { SDPERR("Response buffer alloc failure:%m (%d)", errno); return -1; } - memset(rspbuf, 0, SDP_RSP_BUFFER_SIZE); t = session->priv; reqhdr = (sdp_pdu_hdr_t *)t->reqbuf;