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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 09:32:43 -0700 From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org> To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> CC: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>, Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: SLUB: Return ZERO_SIZE_PTR for kmalloc(0) Linus Torvalds wrote: > The thing is, why *should* we care about comparing addresses? We'll give > the right result (you got many perfectly separate allocations, they're > just zero bytes apart, exactly like you asked for!). The fact that C++ has > some semantics for it is not a good argument - C++ is a broken language, > and it's not the language we use for the kernel anyway. C too, but I really honestly can't think of a scenario - realistic or contrived - in which you'd end up doing a zero-sized allocation and care that its address has been aliased. But we'll find out when we do it ;) 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists