linux-kernel - Re: GIT head no longer boots on x86-64

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 15 Oct 2008 09:01:30 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...il.com>
cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: GIT head no longer boots on x86-64

On Wed, 15 Oct 2008, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> 
> Users usually do
> is_vmalloc_addr(a) ? vfree(a) : kfree(a);
> Even there it makes more sense to me.

Umm. No it doesn't.

That is exactly _wh7y_ "is_vmalloc_addr()" exists. But we sure as hell 
don't ever want to trigger on modules for that.

If you think that "is_vmalloc_addr()" should trigger for any kernel 
virtual address, why not just make it do so, then? And _name_ it so.

Names are important. In fact, naming is often _more_ important than the 
implementation is. And that means that the implementation should follow 
the naming, or the implementation is wrong.

			Linus
--
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/