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
| ||
|
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists