Re: [patch 1/7] slab: introduce kzfree()

[Hugh Dickins]

On Thu, 19 Feb 2009, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > 
> > But I fail to see it as a justification for kzfree(const void *):
> > if someone has "const char *string = kmalloc(size)" and then
> > wants that string zeroed before it is freed, then I think it's
> > quite right to cast out the const when calling kzfree().
> 
> Quite frankly, I fail to see how kzfree() is fundamentally different from
> kfree(). I don't see kzfree() as a memset() + kfree() but rather as a kfree()
> "and make sure no one sees my data". So the zeroing happens _after_ you've
> invalidated the pointer with kzfree() so there's no "zeroing of buffer going
> on".

Well, that would be one way of picturing it, yes.
Imagine the "z" as for "zap" rather than "zero",
and the mechanism as opaque as Hannes suggests.

> So the way I see it, Linus' argument for having const for kfree() applies
> to kzfree().
> 
> That said, if you guys think it's a merge blocker, by all means remove the
> const. I just want few less open-coded ksize() users, that's all.

I wouldn't call it a merge blocker, no; though I still
think it makes far more sense without the "const" there.

Hugh
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/