linux-kernel - Re: Why is the kfree() argument const?

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.4.64.0801161940400.6514@sbz-30.cs.Helsinki.FI>
Date:	Wed, 16 Jan 2008 19:45:22 +0200 (EET)
From:	Pekka J Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
To:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
cc:	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...urebad.de>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Why is the kfree() argument const?

Hi,

On Wed, 16 Jan 2008, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > is there any reason why kfree() takes a const pointer just to degrade it
> > with the call to slab_free()/__cache_free() again?  The promise that the
> > pointee is not modified is just bogus in this case, anyway, isn't it?
 
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> The object is modified in various cases f.e. because of poisoning or the 
> need to store the free pointer. So its bogus, yes. Pekka?

Yeah, bogus, and has been that way for a long time according to git. I'm 
ok with removing that (which would make it consistent with the user-space 
equivalent free(3) function btw).

			Pekka
--
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/