On Po 06-03-06 09:34:01, Al Viro wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 06, 2006 at 10:40:03AM +0200, Kai Makisara wrote:
> > > Legal, but rather bad taste. Init to NULL, possibly assign the value
> > > if kmalloc(), then kfree() unconditionally - sure, but that... almost
> > > certainly one hell of a lousy cleanup logics somewhere.
> > >
> > I agree with you.
> >
> > However, a few months ago it was advocated to let kfree take care of
> > testing the pointer against NULL and a load of patches like this:
>
> That's different - that's _exactly_ the case I've mentioned above.
>
> Moreover, that's exact match to standard behaviour of free(3):
>
> C99 7.20.3.2(2):
> The free function causes the space pointed to by ptr to be deallocated, that
> is, made available for further allocation. If ptr is a null pointer, no action
> occurs. Otherwise, if the argument does not match a pointer returned by the
> calloc, malloc, or realloc function, or if the space has been deallocated by
> a call to free or realloc, the behaviour is undefined.
>
> IOW, free(NULL) is guaranteed to be no-op while double-free is nasal daemon
> country.
Well, double-free of NULL is permitted by text above. 'If ptr is a
null pointer, no action occurs.'
OTOH #define kfree(a) { __kfree(a); a = NULL; } actually does the
right thing... even with double free.
Pavel
--
Web maintainer for suspend.sf.net (www.sf.net/projects/suspend) wanted...
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
