linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] [DISCUSS] Make the variable NULL after freeing it.

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]

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0612280952450.15825@yvahk01.tjqt.qr>
Date:	Thu, 28 Dec 2006 09:54:28 +0100 (MET)
From:	Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de>
To:	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
cc:	Amit Choudhary <amit2030@...oo.com>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [DISCUSS] Make the variable NULL after freeing it.


On Dec 27 2006 17:10, Pavel Machek wrote:

>> Was just wondering if the _var_ in kfree(_var_) could be set to
>> NULL after its freed. It may solve the problem of accessing some
>> freed memory as the kernel will crash since _var_ was set to NULL.
>> 
>> Does this make sense? If yes, then how about renaming kfree to
>> something else and providing a kfree macro that would do the
>> following:
>> 
>> #define kfree(x) do { \
>>                       new_kfree(x); \
>>                       x = NULL; \
>>                     } while(0)
>> 
>> There might be other better ways too.
>
>No, that would be very confusing. Otoh having
>KFREE() do kfree() and assignment might be acceptable.

What about setting x to some poison value from <linux/poison.h>?


	-`J'
-- 
-
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/