Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 19 Feb 2009 20:36:48 +0000 (GMT) | From | Hugh Dickins <> | Subject | Re: [patch 1/7] slab: introduce kzfree() |
| |
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
| |