linux-kernel - Re: kfree(0)

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: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0708151604360.15707@fbirervta.pbzchgretzou.qr>
Date:	Wed, 15 Aug 2007 16:06:49 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...putergmbh.de>
To:	Kyle Moffett <mrmacman_g4@....com>
cc:	Rene Herman <rene.herman@...il.com>,
	Jason Uhlenkott <jasonuhl@...onuhl.org>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	Tim Bird <tim.bird@...sony.com>,
	linux kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: kfree(0) - ok?


On Aug 15 2007 09:58, Kyle Moffett wrote:
>
> Irrespective of whatever the standard says, EVERY platform and
> compiler anybody makes nowadays has a NULL pointer value with all
> bits clear.  Theoretically the standard allows otherwise, but such
> a decision would break so much code.  Linux especially, we rely on
> the uninitialized data to have all bits clear and we depend on that
> producing NULL pointers; if a NULL pointer was not bitwise exactly
> 0 then the test "if (some_ptr != NULL)" would fail and we would
> start dereferencing garbage.

But if kmalloc returns NULL on failure, then testing for NULL
(irrespective of being 0 or 0xDEADBEEF) is ok.
What would actually concern me then is what "if (!some_ptr)" would do.
Probably not the right thing.


	Jan
-- 
-
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/