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]

Message-Id: <E1IGVGf-0000sv-00@dorka.pomaz.szeredi.hu>
Date:	Thu, 02 Aug 2007 09:38:45 +0200
From:	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To:	clameter@....com
CC:	miklos@...redi.hu, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] type safe allocator

> > 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);
> > 
> > And we have zillions of both variants.
> 
> Hmmm yes I think that would be good. However, please clean up the naming.
> The variant on zeroing on zering get to be too much.

OK, there seems to be a consensus on that ;)

[snip]

> I do not see any _node variants?

Well, those are _very_ rare, I'd only add those if there's a demand
for them.

> The array variants translate into kmalloc anyways and are used
> in an inconsistent manner. Sometime this way sometimes the other. Leave 
> them?

If the too many variants are bothersome, then I'd rather just have the
array variant, and give 1 as an array size for the non-array case.

> 	kcalloc(n, size, flags) == kmalloc(size, flags)
> 
> Then kzalloc is equivalent to adding the __GFP_ZERO flag. Thus
> 
> 	kzalloc(size, flags) == kmalloc(size, flags | __GFPZERO)
> 
> If you define a new flag like GFP_ZERO_ATOMIC and GFP_ZERO_KERNEL you 
> could do
> 
> 	kalloc(struct, GFP_ZERO_KERNEL)
> 
> instead of adding new variants?

I don't really like this, introducing new gfp flags just makes
grepping harder.

I do think that at least having a zeroing and a non-zeroing variant
makes sense.

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/