As noted in the kernel documentation [1], open-coded multiplication in
allocator arguments is discouraged because it can lead to integer overflow.

Use kcalloc() to gain built-in overflow protection, making memory
allocation safer when calculating allocation size compared to explicit
multiplication.  Similarly, use size_add() instead of explicit addition
for 'uobj_chunk_num + sobj_chunk_num'.

Link: https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/next/process/deprecated.html#open-coded-arithmetic-in-allocator-arguments #1
Signed-off-by: Qianfeng Rong <rongqianfeng@vivo.com>
---
v2: Changed explicit addition 'uobj_chunk_num + sobj_chunk_num' to use
    size_add().
v3: Revise the version description to keep it consistent with the changes.
---
 drivers/crypto/intel/qat/qat_common/qat_uclo.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/crypto/intel/qat/qat_common/qat_uclo.c b/drivers/crypto/intel/qat/qat_common/qat_uclo.c
index 21d652a1c8ef..18c3e4416dc5 100644
--- a/drivers/crypto/intel/qat/qat_common/qat_uclo.c
+++ b/drivers/crypto/intel/qat/qat_common/qat_uclo.c
@@ -1900,7 +1900,7 @@ static int qat_uclo_map_objs_from_mof(struct icp_qat_mof_handle *mobj_handle)
 	if (sobj_hdr)
 		sobj_chunk_num = sobj_hdr->num_chunks;
 
-	mobj_hdr = kzalloc((uobj_chunk_num + sobj_chunk_num) *
+	mobj_hdr = kcalloc(size_add(uobj_chunk_num, sobj_chunk_num),
 			   sizeof(*mobj_hdr), GFP_KERNEL);
 	if (!mobj_hdr)
 		return -ENOMEM;
-- 
2.34.1

On Thu, Aug 21, 2025 at 10:20:26PM +0800, Qianfeng Rong wrote:
> As noted in the kernel documentation [1], open-coded multiplication in
> allocator arguments is discouraged because it can lead to integer overflow.
> 
> Use kcalloc() to gain built-in overflow protection, making memory
> allocation safer when calculating allocation size compared to explicit
> multiplication.  Similarly, use size_add() instead of explicit addition
> for 'uobj_chunk_num + sobj_chunk_num'.
> 
> Link: https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/next/process/deprecated.html#open-coded-arithmetic-in-allocator-arguments #1
> Signed-off-by: Qianfeng Rong <rongqianfeng@vivo.com>
> ---
> v2: Changed explicit addition 'uobj_chunk_num + sobj_chunk_num' to use
>     size_add().
> v3: Revise the version description to keep it consistent with the changes.
> ---
>  drivers/crypto/intel/qat/qat_common/qat_uclo.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

Patch applied.  Thanks.
-- 
Email: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt

On Thu, Aug 21, 2025 at 10:20:26PM +0800, Qianfeng Rong wrote:
> As noted in the kernel documentation [1], open-coded multiplication in
> allocator arguments is discouraged because it can lead to integer overflow.
> 
> Use kcalloc() to gain built-in overflow protection, making memory
> allocation safer when calculating allocation size compared to explicit
> multiplication.  Similarly, use size_add() instead of explicit addition
> for 'uobj_chunk_num + sobj_chunk_num'.
> 
> Link: https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/next/process/deprecated.html#open-coded-arithmetic-in-allocator-arguments #1
> Signed-off-by: Qianfeng Rong <rongqianfeng@vivo.com>
Acked-by: Giovanni Cabiddu <giovanni.cabiddu@intel.com>

Regards,

-- 
Giovanni

On Thu, Aug 21, 2025 at 10:20:26PM +0800, Qianfeng Rong wrote:
> As noted in the kernel documentation [1], open-coded multiplication in
> allocator arguments is discouraged because it can lead to integer overflow.
> 
> Use kcalloc() to gain built-in overflow protection, making memory
> allocation safer when calculating allocation size compared to explicit
> multiplication.  Similarly, use size_add() instead of explicit addition
> for 'uobj_chunk_num + sobj_chunk_num'.

FWIW,
Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko