Re: kfree(0) - ok?

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...>
Cc: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...>, Christoph Lameter <clameter@...>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...>, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...>, Tim Bird <tim.bird@...>, linux kernel <linux-kernel@...>
Date: Friday, August 17, 2007 - 8:02 pm

On Sat, 18 Aug 2007, Thomas Gleixner wrote:


No, not valid. Dereferencing it will oops. See ZERO_SIZE_PTR.


What we're doing presently is at least better than what SLAB did
previously (did return a valid pointer!), all this time :-)

I do agree with you in principle, of course. But it's not for the kind of
cases that you describe -- "kmalloc(0) just because I'd eventually want
to krealloc() it to something meaningful later". This was done because
there's a lot of lazy callsites that "don't want to write code for corner
cases explicitly". Sad, very sad, I say :-)

[ The krealloc() discussion on this thread came about when I noticed that
  it's the only callsite of ksize() that would reasonably / meaningfully
  want to deal with NULL ptrs, for whom I noticed (from Andrew's initial
  mail) that ksize(NULL) returned 0. As you know from the canonical
  semantics of realloc(), it _is_ supposed to deal with NULL ptrs, hence
  the discussion. ]


Satyam
-
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
kfree(0) - ok?, Tim Bird, (Tue Aug 14, 6:59 pm)
Re: kfree(0) - ok?, Satyam Sharma, (Tue Aug 14, 7:13 pm)
Re: kfree(0) - ok?, Arjan van de Ven, (Tue Aug 14, 6:55 pm)
Re: kfree(0) - ok?, Satyam Sharma, (Tue Aug 14, 7:42 pm)
Re: kfree(0) - ok?, Andrew Morton, (Fri Aug 17, 2:22 pm)
Re: kfree(0) - ok?, Satyam Sharma, (Fri Aug 17, 5:13 pm)
Re: kfree(0) - ok?, Christoph Lameter, (Fri Aug 17, 5:14 pm)
Re: kfree(0) - ok?, Satyam Sharma, (Fri Aug 17, 5:46 pm)
Re: kfree(0) - ok?, Pekka Enberg, (Fri Aug 17, 5:42 pm)
Re: kfree(0) - ok?, Thomas Gleixner, (Fri Aug 17, 7:40 pm)
Re: kfree(0) - ok?, Jan Engelhardt, (Sat Aug 18, 4:21 am)
Re: kfree(0) - ok?, Pekka Enberg, (Sat Aug 18, 4:10 am)
Re: kfree(0) - ok?, Christoph Lameter, (Fri Aug 17, 9:03 pm)
Re: kfree(0) - ok?, Satyam Sharma, (Fri Aug 17, 8:02 pm)
Re: kfree(0) - ok?, Christoph Lameter, (Fri Aug 17, 7:22 pm)
Re: kfree(0) - ok?, Christoph Lameter, (Fri Aug 17, 4:43 pm)
Re: kfree(0) - ok?, Satyam Sharma, (Fri Aug 17, 5:17 pm)
Re: kfree(0) - ok?, Satyam Sharma, (Fri Aug 17, 5:32 pm)
Re: kfree(0) - ok?, Jan Engelhardt, (Fri Aug 17, 2:37 pm)
Re: kfree(0) - ok?, Arjan van de Ven, (Fri Aug 17, 2:31 pm)
Re: kfree(0) - ok?, Satyam Sharma, (Fri Aug 17, 2:50 pm)
Re: kfree(0) - ok?, Christoph Lameter, (Tue Aug 14, 8:19 pm)
Re: kfree(0) - ok?, Jason Uhlenkott, (Tue Aug 14, 7:21 pm)
Re: kfree(0) - ok?, Jan Engelhardt, (Wed Aug 15, 3:28 am)
Re: kfree(0) - ok?, Giacomo A. Catenazzi, (Wed Aug 15, 5:32 am)
Re: kfree(0) - ok?, Andreas Schwab, (Wed Aug 15, 5:18 am)
Re: kfree(0) - ok?, Jason Uhlenkott, (Wed Aug 15, 4:52 am)
Re: kfree(0) - ok?, Rene Herman, (Wed Aug 15, 4:37 am)
Re: kfree(0) - ok?, Jan Engelhardt, (Wed Aug 15, 5:20 am)
Re: kfree(0) - ok?, Rene Herman, (Wed Aug 15, 5:58 am)
Re: kfree(0) - ok?, Jan Engelhardt, (Wed Aug 15, 6:20 am)
Re: kfree(0) - ok?, H. Peter Anvin, (Wed Aug 15, 12:01 pm)
Re: kfree(0) - ok?, Kyle Moffett, (Wed Aug 15, 9:58 am)
Re: kfree(0) - ok?, Jan Engelhardt, (Wed Aug 15, 10:06 am)
Re: kfree(0) - ok?, Kyle Moffett, (Wed Aug 15, 10:34 am)
Re: kfree(0) - ok?, Rene Herman, (Wed Aug 15, 6:27 am)
Re: kfree(0) - ok?, Jason Uhlenkott, (Wed Aug 15, 5:43 am)