linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 09/10] percpu: implement new dynamic percpu allocator

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:	Tue, 24 Feb 2009 13:22:45 +1030
From:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, tglx@...utronix.de, x86@...nel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hpa@...or.com, jeremy@...p.org,
	cpw@....com, mingo@...e.hu
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/10] percpu: implement new dynamic percpu allocator

On Friday 20 February 2009 13:34:17 Andrew Morton wrote:
> It's a dumb convention.

I disagree, but it doesn't matter.  Least surprise wins; let's not make
kernel coding any harder than it has to be.

free() does it, so kfree() should do it.  Otherwise call it something
completely different.  Too late, let's move on...

> In the vast majority of cases the pointer is
> not NULL.  We add a test-n-branch to 99.999999999% of cases just to
> save three seconds of programmer effort a single time.

It's unusual, but since I've used it several times in the kernel myself,
it's less than 4 9s (by call sites not by usage, since it tends to be
error paths).

> (We can still do that by adding a new
> kfree_im_not_stupid() which doesn't do the check).

Now you're insulting people who use it as well as exaggerating your case.

Do you need a hug?
Rusty.
--
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/