It's safer to using kcalloc() because it can prevent overflow
problem.

Signed-off-by: Su Hui <suhui@nfschina.com>
---
v2: 
 - using kcalloc rather than kmalloc_array().
v1:
 - https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250421061508.718752-1-suhui@nfschina.com/

 kernel/rcu/rcuscale.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/kernel/rcu/rcuscale.c b/kernel/rcu/rcuscale.c
index 0f3059b1b80d..b521d0455992 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/rcuscale.c
+++ b/kernel/rcu/rcuscale.c
@@ -762,7 +762,7 @@ kfree_scale_thread(void *arg)
 		}
 
 		for (i = 0; i < kfree_alloc_num; i++) {
-			alloc_ptr = kmalloc(kfree_mult * sizeof(struct kfree_obj), GFP_KERNEL);
+			alloc_ptr = kcalloc(kfree_mult, sizeof(struct kfree_obj), GFP_KERNEL);
 			if (!alloc_ptr)
 				return -ENOMEM;
 
-- 
2.30.2

On Tue, Apr 22, 2025 at 09:51:45AM +0800, Su Hui wrote:
> It's safer to using kcalloc() because it can prevent overflow
> problem.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Su Hui <suhui@nfschina.com>

Reviewed-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>

> ---
> v2: 
>  - using kcalloc rather than kmalloc_array().
> v1:
>  - https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250421061508.718752-1-suhui@nfschina.com/
> 
>  kernel/rcu/rcuscale.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/rcuscale.c b/kernel/rcu/rcuscale.c
> index 0f3059b1b80d..b521d0455992 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcu/rcuscale.c
> +++ b/kernel/rcu/rcuscale.c
> @@ -762,7 +762,7 @@ kfree_scale_thread(void *arg)
>  		}
>  
>  		for (i = 0; i < kfree_alloc_num; i++) {
> -			alloc_ptr = kmalloc(kfree_mult * sizeof(struct kfree_obj), GFP_KERNEL);
> +			alloc_ptr = kcalloc(kfree_mult, sizeof(struct kfree_obj), GFP_KERNEL);
>  			if (!alloc_ptr)
>  				return -ENOMEM;
>  
> -- 
> 2.30.2
>

On 4/22/2025 1:58 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 22, 2025 at 09:51:45AM +0800, Su Hui wrote:
>> It's safer to using kcalloc() because it can prevent overflow
>> problem.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Su Hui <suhui@nfschina.com>
> 
> Reviewed-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
Applied, thanks.