netdev - Re: [PATCH 4/4] atm/ambassador: kmalloc + memset conversion to 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 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]

Date:	Mon, 26 Nov 2007 19:53:19 +0900
From:	"Joonwoo Park" <joonwpark81@...il.com>
To:	"Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@...shcourse.ca>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, chas@....nrl.navy.mil,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] atm/ambassador: kmalloc + memset conversion to kzalloc

2007/11/26, Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@...shcourse.ca>:
> i realized that.  but all you can say is that only amb_init() calls
> setup_dev() *currently*.  when you're not looking, someone else might
> (for whatever reason) call setup_dev() from elsewhere, and *that* call
> might not zero that memory area.
>
> IMHO, the only safe transforms of kmalloc+memset -> kzalloc are those
> in which the flow of control is unmistakable and invariant.  splitting
> that across a function call seems like a dangerous thing to do.
> (except, of course, in the case, where the kzalloc() is added inside
> the function -- then all callers are entitled to simplify *their*
> code.  but that's different.)
>
> in any event, i just thought i'd point it out.  if you're absolutely
> sure there will never be another call to setup_dev() from somewhere
> else, then, yes, it's safe.
>

I understood your opinions. and partially agree with you.
But isn't it a unfounded fear?

Thanks
Joonwoo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html