linux-kernel - Re: SLUB: Return ZERO_SIZE

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: <46643EAB.7070705@goop.org>
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/