linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: Test for kmalloc/memset(0) pairs

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: <20110317211548.646b04d2@tpl.lwn.net>
Date:	Thu, 17 Mar 2011 21:15:48 -0600
From:	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
To:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andy Whitcroft <apw@...dowen.org>,
	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: Test for kmalloc/memset(0) pairs

On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 22:52:24 -0400
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:

> The use of kzalloc() is preferred over kmalloc/memset(0) pairs.
> 
> When a match is made with "memset(p, 0, s);" a search back through the
> patch hunk is made looking for "p = kmalloc(s,". If that is found, then
> a warning is given, suggesting to use kzalloc() instead.

The Coccinelle stuff already has a lot of this kind of test.  See, for
example, scripts/coccinelle/api/alloc/kzalloc-simple.cocci.  Suppose
there is some way all this nice analysis infrastructure could be
integrated instead of duplicated?  Or am I just a crazy dreamer?

jon
--
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/