| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <47905A95.4030500@cateee.net> Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 08:51:49 +0100 From: Giacomo Catenazzi <cate@...eee.net> To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> CC: David Schwartz <davids@...master.com>, Johannes Weiner <hannes@...urebad.de>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, clameter@....com, penberg@...helsinki.fi Subject: Re: Why is the kfree() argument const? Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Thu, 17 Jan 2008, David Schwartz wrote: >>> "const" has nothing to do with "logical state". It has one meaning, and >>> one meaning only: the compiler should complain if that particular type is >>> used to do a write access. >> Right, exactly. > > So why do you complain? > > kfree() literally doesn't write to the object. > >> You are the only one who has suggested it has anything to do with changes >> through other pointers or in other ways. So you are arguing against only >> yourself here. > > No, I'm saying that "const" has absolutely *zero* meaning on writes to an > object through _other_ pointers (or direct access) to the object. Hints: "restrict" is the C99 keyword for such requirement (or better "const restrict") BTW I think C use non const free as a BIG warning about not to be to "smart" on optimization. ciao cate -- 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