| 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: <4B1610BA.5090906@cs.helsinki.fi> Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 09:01:14 +0200 From: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi> To: hooanon05@...oo.co.jp CC: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: Q, slab, kmemleak_erase() and redzone? Hi! hooanon05@...oo.co.jp kirjoitti: > Pekka Enberg: >>> No, you are absolutely correct. Can you please send an updated patch to >>> Catalin that adds a comment on top of the cpu_cache_get() call that >>> explains why we need it there? >> Doh, this was supposed to be a reply to Okajima's email :-). > > Before I send a small patch, let me make sure about other small issues. > > - How heavy is 'ac = cpu_cache_get(cachep)' (which will be inserted by > the patch)? > It will be compiled and executed regardless CONFIG_DEBUG_KMEMLEAK, and > it is totally meaningless when DEBUG_KMEMLEAK is disabled. Can we > ignore this loss? No, it won't be. The compiler should notice it's dead code and remove it when CONFIG_KMEMLEAK is disabled. > - Should we add a condition 'if (objp)' before calling kmemleak_erase()? > As Catalin wrote, it may be harmless. But setting NULL is unnecessary. > Do you accept this change too? Yeah, I'd prefer to see the check there. While Catalin is correct, that's not obvious from reading the code. 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