On 28.10.2016 15:18, Tom Gundersen wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 2:06 PM, Richard Weinberger
> <richard.weinber...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> David, Tom,
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 9:18 PM, David Herrmann <dh.herrm...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> +struct bus1_peer *bus1_peer_new(void)
>>> +{
>>> + static atomic64_t peer_ids = ATOMIC64_INIT(0);
>>> + const struct cred *cred = current_cred();
>>> + struct bus1_peer *peer;
>>> + struct bus1_user *user;
>>> +
>>> + user = bus1_user_ref_by_uid(cred->uid);
>>> + if (IS_ERR(user))
>>> + return ERR_CAST(user);
>>> +
>>> + peer = kmalloc(sizeof(*peer), GFP_KERNEL);
>>> + if (!peer) {
>>> + bus1_user_unref(user);
>>> + return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + /* initialize constant fields */
>>> + peer->id = atomic64_inc_return(&peer_ids);
>>
>> What is the purpose of this id? Do other components depend on it
>> and are they aware of possible overflows?
>
> The id is used purely to give a name to the peer in debugfs.
Okay.
>> Since it is an 64bit integer overflowing it is hard but not impossible.
>
> Hm, what scenario do you have in mind? I cannot see how this could
> happen (short of creating peers in a loop for hundreds of years).
When it is purely for naming creating peers is slow enough it is no problem
at all. That's why I was asking.
Thanks,
//richard
