netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/4][MAC80211]: Fix GFP_KERNEL allocation under read lock.

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: <4821442D.8010801@openvz.org>
Date:	Wed, 07 May 2008 09:54:53 +0400
From:	Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, johannes@...solutions.net
CC:	netdev@...eo.de, linville@...driver.com,
	linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4][MAC80211]: Fix GFP_KERNEL allocation under read lock.

David Miller wrote:
> From: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>
> Date: Tue, 06 May 2008 21:46:38 +0400
> 
>> I do not quite like doing so. Since this relies on fact that kfree bears
>> NULL pointers. But if we ever switch from kmalloc to kmem_cache_alloc,
>> this will result in an oops.
> 
> The whole reason we made kfree allow NULL points is so that
> checks for it would be ommitted at kfree calls sides, whether
> they be direct or indirect.

Hm... I really thought that this check in kfree is just for sanity 
against some 3rd part code. But why kmem_cache_free() is not such then?

> Adding the check for some theoretical-or-not future change is
> rediculious.

Well, this makes sense. Shall I resubmit the set?

Thanks,
Pavel
--
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