lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 11:10:29 +0300 From: "Pekka Enberg" <penberg@...helsinki.fi> To: "Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@...utronix.de> Cc: "Christoph Lameter" <clameter@....com>, "Satyam Sharma" <satyam@...radead.org>, "Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, "Arjan van de Ven" <arjan@...radead.org>, "Tim Bird" <tim.bird@...sony.com>, "linux kernel" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: kfree(0) - ok? On 8/18/07, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote: > If yes, who invented this 1980s reminiscence, where you got valid > pointers for malloc(0) ? Well, kmalloc(0) has always been legal and traditionally returned a pointer to a smallest non-zero sized object. We did try to make kmalloc(0) illegal for a while but ended up fixing up a bunch of call-sites for little or no gain. I did propose that kmalloc(0) should return NULL but Linus and others pointed out that we can do better and not mix up out-of-memory and zero-sized allocations. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists