[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <912C3FD2-3B6D-4328-8485-657F63CC6552@mac.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 10:34:10 -0400
From: Kyle Moffett <mrmacman_g4@....com>
To: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...putergmbh.de>
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, at 10:06:49, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> 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.
Well, what I was referring to is:
static struct foo *some_ptr;
/* Assumes that $SOME_LOCK is held */
int initialize_foo_module()
{
if (!some_ptr) {
some_ptr = kmalloc(sizeof(*some_ptr));
if (!some_ptr)
return -ENOMEM;
/* ... */
}
/* ... */
}
We initialize all of the static data to all-bits-clear zeros during
kernel init. Any platform on which the binary representations of
"(unsigned long)0" and "(void *)0" are different (even in length, due
to other issues) will not run the Linux kernel as it stands today.
And as to the sizeof(unsigned long) == sizeof(void *) issue, please
remember that every Linux compiler is either ILP32 (int, long, and
pointer are 32-bit) or LP64 (int is 32-bit and long/pointer are 64-
bit). We sort of fundamentally rely on these properties in code all
over the place.
So yes the Linux kernel "breaks the standard" in a bunch of places,
but on the other hand we're not your average software and we don't
have to worry about building on an LLP64 compiler (Windows 64-bit and
some UNIXes) or other strangeness.
Cheers,
Kyle Moffett
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists