[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e47bef56-9271-93e0-0e59-c77c253babea@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2020 10:34:33 -0400
From: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, keyrings@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-afs@...ts.infradead.org, Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@...aro.org>,
Jerry Snitselaar <jsnitsel@...hat.com>,
Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@...wei.com>,
Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...gle.com>,
Chris von Recklinghausen <crecklin@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/4] KEYS: Avoid false positive ENOMEM error on key
read
On 3/18/20 4:27 AM, David Howells wrote:
> Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com> wrote:
>
>> +static inline void __kvzfree(const void *addr, size_t len)
>> +{
>> + if (addr) {
>> + memset((void *)addr, 0, len);
>> + kvfree(addr);
>> + }
>> +}
> I wonder if that would be better as "kvfree(memset(...))" as memset() will
> return the address parameter. If memset is not inline, it avoids the need for
> the compiler to save the parameter.
>
> David
Doing this is micro-optimization. As the keys subsystem is that
performance critical, do we need to do that to save a cycle or two while
making the code a bit harder to read?
Cheers,
Longman
Powered by blists - more mailing lists