linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 0/4] CONFIG_STABLE to switch off development checks

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: <46608E76.9080109@goop.org>
Date:	Fri, 01 Jun 2007 14:24:06 -0700
From:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/4] CONFIG_STABLE to switch off development checks

Christoph Lameter wrote:
>> I disagree.  There are plenty of boundary conditions where 0 is not
>> really a special case, and making it a special case just complicates
>> things.  I think at least some of the patches posted to silence this
>> warning have been generally negative for code quality.  If we were
>> seeing lots of zero-sized allocations then that might indicate something
>> is amiss, but it seems to me that there's just a scattered handful.
>>
>> I agree that it's always a useful debugging aid to make sure that
>> allocated regions are not over-run, but 0-sized allocations are not
>> special in this regard.
>>     
>
> Still insisting on it even after the discovery of the cpuset kmalloc(0) issue?
>   

Sure. That was a normal buffer-overrun bug. There's nothing special
about 0-sized allocations.

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/