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: <5eeb9ad90801181006r300e23e6t39159f1c1ccde0af@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 18 Jan 2008 19:06:28 +0100
From:	DM <dm.n9107@...il.com>
To:	davids@...master.com
Cc:	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	"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?

On Jan 18, 2008 6:02 AM, David Schwartz <davids@...master.com> wrote:
>
> However, *destroying* an object is not a metadata operation -- it destroys
> the data as well. This is kind of a philosophical point, but an object does
> not have a "does this object exist" piece of metadata. If an object does not
> exist, it has no data. So destroying an object destroys the data and is thus
> a write/modification operation on the data.
>

In C++ you can delete a const pointer. Now I know kernel hackers
aren't especially impressed with C++ but maybe someone could look up
the rationale for that design decision (I couldn't find it). It might
shed some light on this discussion.

/DM
--
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/