linux-kernel - Re: [Linux-cifsd-devel] [PATCH] cifsd: use kfree to free memory allocated by kzalloc

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: <46e67316-58f3-435d-458c-11968499d4ee@talpey.com>
Date:   Thu, 1 Apr 2021 17:04:07 -0400
From:   Tom Talpey <tom@...pey.com>
To:     Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@...nel.org>, Ralph Boehme <slow@...ba.org>
Cc:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
        COMMON INTERNET FILE SYSTEM SERVER 
        <linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org>,
        COMMON INTERNET FILE SYSTEM SERVER 
        <linux-cifsd-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Steve French <sfrench@...ba.org>, colin.king@...onical.com,
        Muhammad Usama Anjum <musamaanjum@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [Linux-cifsd-devel] [PATCH] cifsd: use kfree to free memory
 allocated by kzalloc

On 4/1/2021 9:36 AM, Namjae Jeon wrote:
> 2021-04-01 22:14 GMT+09:00, Ralph Boehme <slow@...ba.org>:
>> Am 4/1/21 um 2:59 PM schrieb Namjae Jeon:
>>> 2021-04-01 21:50 GMT+09:00, Ralph Boehme <slow@...ba.org>:
>>>> fwiw, while at it what about renaming everything that still references
>>>> "cifs" to "smb" ? This is not the 90's... :)
>>> It is also used with the name "ksmbd". So function and variable prefix
>>> are used with ksmbd.
>>
>> well, I was thinking of this:
>>
>>   > +++ b/fs/cifsd/...
>>
>> We should really stop using the name cifs for modern implementation of
>> SMB{23} and the code should not be added as fs/cifsd/ to the kernel.
> As I know, currently "cifs" is being used for the subdirectory name
> for historical reasons and to avoid confusions, even though the CIFS
> (SMB1) dialect is no longer recommended.

I'm with Ralph. CIFS is history that we need to relegate to the past.

I also agree that wrappers around core memory allocators are to
be avoided.

Tom.