| 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: <1298575506.6376.4.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 14:25:06 -0500 From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> To: Ilia Mirkin <imirkin@...m.mit.edu> Cc: Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] staging: remove null checks before kfree On Thu, 2011-02-24 at 19:08 +0000, Ilia Mirkin wrote: > FWIW my reasoning for doing this was that generally the reason you're > freeing something is because you allocated it, so kfree(NULL) happens > rarely -- error paths, conditional features, etc. If you actually > expect the argument to be NULL often, then you would do something like > if (unlikely(x)) kfree(x). This is done a few times in the core > kernel. I think it makes more sense for kfree to keep the unlikely > since in cold paths it won't matter and in hot paths where it is often > NULL, there should be a conditional at the call site. [I'm sure you'll > note the lack of an attached benchmark... this is just what makes > sense to me.] That unlikely has been there for years, and another year wont hurt anything ;) I'll run my unlikely clean up again in December, and we'll see what needs to be touched then. Thanks, -- Steve -- 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