| 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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 04:09:16 -0800 From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> To: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org> Cc: "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>, Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com> Subject: Re: Memory allocator semantics On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 10:50:24AM +0200, Pekka Enberg wrote: > Hi Paul, > > On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 4:00 AM, Paul E. McKenney > <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > From what I can see, (A) works by accident, but is kind of useless because > > you allocate and free the memory without touching it. (B) and (C) are the > > lightest touches I could imagine, and as you say, both are bad. So I > > believe that it is reasonable to prohibit (A). > > > > Or is there some use for (A) that I am missing? > > So again, there's nothing in (A) that the memory allocator is > concerned about. kmalloc() makes no guarantees whatsoever about the > visibility of "r1" across CPUs. If you're saying that there's an > implicit barrier between kmalloc() and kfree(), that's an unintended > side-effect, not a design decision AFAICT. Thank you. That was what I suspected, and I believe that it is a completely reasonable response to (A). Thanx, Paul -- 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