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 06:20:34 -0500 (EST)
From:	"Robert P. J. Day" <>
To:	Joonwoo Park <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] atm/ambassador: kmalloc + memset conversion to

On Mon, 26 Nov 2007, Joonwoo Park wrote:

> 2007/11/26, Robert P. J. Day <>:
> > 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?

i don't know, i just thought i'd mention it.  if no one thinks it's an
issue, it's certainly fine with me.


Robert P. J. Day
Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry
Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists