On Sat, 18 Aug 2007, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-08-18 at 00:42 +0300, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> > On 8/18/07, Christoph Lameter <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > That was merged over my objections. IMHO ksize(NULL) should fail since we
> > > are determining the size of an unallocated object.
> >
> > Agreed, especially as we have real zero-sized objects returned from
> > kmalloc() et al now.
>
> Do we really ?
>
> If yes, who invented this 1980s reminiscence, where you got valid
> pointers for malloc(0) ?
No, not valid. Dereferencing it will oops. See ZERO_SIZE_PTR.
> This is completely stupid. You do not go into a bar and order an empty
> glass, just because you might eventually become thirsty later.
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
-
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]
