[lkml]   [2008]   [Jan]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRE: Why is the kfree() argument const?

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008, David Schwartz wrote:
> Nonsense. The 'kfree' function *destroys* the object pointer to by the
> pointer. How can you describe that as not doing anything to the object?

Here's an idea. Think it through.

Why don't we need write permissions to a file to unlink it?

Here's a hint: because unlinking doesn't *write* to it. In fact, it
doesn't read from it either. It doesn't do any access at all to that
object, it just *removes* it.

Is the file gone after you unlink it? Yes (modulo refcounting for aliasing
"pointers" aka filenames, but that's the same for any memory manager -
malloc/free just doesn't have any, so you could think of it as a
non-hardlinking filesystem).

So you're the one who are speaking nonsense. Making something "not exist"
is not at all the same thing as accessing it for a write (or a read). It
is a metadata operation that doesn't conceptually change the data in any
way, shape or form - it just makes it go away.

And btw, exactly as with kfree(), a unlink() may well do something like
"disk scrubbing" for security purposes, or cancel pending writes to the
backing store. But even though it may write (or, by undoing a pending
write, effectively "change the state") to the disk sectors that used to
contain the file data, ONLY AN IDIOT would call it "writing to the file".
Because "the file" is gone. Writing to the place where the file used to be
is a different thing.

So give it up. You're wrong. Freeing a memory area is not "writing to it"
or accessing it in *any* manner, it's an operation on another level


 \ /
  Last update: 2008-01-18 17:13    [W:0.089 / U:46.092 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site