linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH] include/linux/slab.h: new KFREE() macro.

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: <000501c732f9$7e3386a0$0200a8c0@nuitysystems.com>
Date:	Sun, 7 Jan 2007 23:49:07 -0800
From:	"Hua Zhong" <hzhong@...il.com>
To:	"'Amit Choudhary'" <amit2030@...oo.com>,
	"'Christoph Hellwig'" <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:	"'Linux Kernel'" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] include/linux/slab.h: new KFREE() macro.

> Any strong reason why not? x has some value that does not 
> make sense and can create only problems.

By the same logic, you should memset the buffer to zero before freeing it too.

> And as I explained, it can result in longer code too. So, why 
> keep this value around. Why not re-initialize it to NULL.

Because initialization increases code size.

It's a silly patch.

> If x should not be re-initialized to NULL, then by the same 
> logic, we should not even initialize local variables. And all 
> of us know that local variables should be initialized.
> 
> I would like to know a good reason as to why x should not be 
> set to NULL.


-
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/