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:	Wed, 01 Aug 2007 13:56:22 +0200
From:	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To:	jengelh@...putergmbh.de
CC:	miklos@...redi.hu, andi@...stfloor.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] type safe allocator

> >> > 
> >> > #define k_new(type, flags) ((type *) kmalloc(sizeof(type), flags))
> >> 
> >> The cast doesn't make it more safe in any way
> >
> >I does, since a warning will be issued, if the type of the assigned
> >pointer doesn't match the requested allocation.
> >
> >And yes, warnings are _very_ useful in C for enforcing type safety.
> 
> 	void *p;
> 	p = (struct foo *)kmalloc(sizeof(struct foo), GFP_KERNEL);

Using void pointers is _obviously_ not type safe.  What has that got
to do with k_new()?

Miklos
-
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/