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: <46619AB6.5060606@goop.org>
Date:	Sat, 02 Jun 2007 09:28:38 -0700
From:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To:	Dave Kleikamp <shaggy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
CC:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>, 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

Dave Kleikamp wrote:
> I'm on Christoph's side here.  I don't think it makes sense for any code
> to ask to allocate zero bytes of memory and expect valid memory to be
> returned.
>   

Yes, everyone agrees on that.  If you do kmalloc(0), its never OK to
dereference the result.  The question is whether kmalloc(0) should complain.

> Would a compromise be to return a pointer to some known invalid region?
> This way the kmalloc(0) call would appear successful to the caller, but
> any access to the memory would result in an exception.
>   

Yes, that's what Christoph has posted.  I'm slightly concerned about
kmalloc() returning the same non-NULL address multiple times, but it
seems sound otherwise.

    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/