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]
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