linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] type safe allocator

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:	01 Aug 2007 12:44:52 +0200
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] type safe allocator

Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu> writes:

> I wonder why we don't have type safe object allocators a-la new() in
> C++ or g_new() in glib?
> 
>   fooptr = k_new(struct foo, GFP_KERNEL);
> 
> is nicer and more descriptive than
> 
>   fooptr = kmalloc(sizeof(*fooptr), GFP_KERNEL);
> 
> and more safe than
> 
>   fooptr = kmalloc(sizeof(struct foo), GFP_KERNEL);

How is it more safe? It seems 100% equivalent to me,
just a different syntax.

> 
> And we have zillions of both variants.

In my own non kernel code i tend to define a pascal style NEW()

#define NEW(p) ((p) = malloc(sizeof(*(p))))

But I'm not sure such a untraditional solution would too popular.

Also I don't think we have too many bugs in this area anyways; so
it might be better to concentrate on more fruitful areas.

-Andi
-
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/