Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] mm, treewide: Rename kzfree() to kfree_sensitive() | From | Waiman Long <> | Date | Tue, 16 Jun 2020 14:36:15 -0400 |
| |
On 6/16/20 2:09 PM, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 11:43:11 -0400 Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com> wrote: > >> As said by Linus: >> >> A symmetric naming is only helpful if it implies symmetries in use. >> Otherwise it's actively misleading. >> >> In "kzalloc()", the z is meaningful and an important part of what the >> caller wants. >> >> In "kzfree()", the z is actively detrimental, because maybe in the >> future we really _might_ want to use that "memfill(0xdeadbeef)" or >> something. The "zero" part of the interface isn't even _relevant_. >> >> The main reason that kzfree() exists is to clear sensitive information >> that should not be leaked to other future users of the same memory >> objects. >> >> Rename kzfree() to kfree_sensitive() to follow the example of the >> recently added kvfree_sensitive() and make the intention of the API >> more explicit. In addition, memzero_explicit() is used to clear the >> memory to make sure that it won't get optimized away by the compiler. >> >> The renaming is done by using the command sequence: >> >> git grep -w --name-only kzfree |\ >> xargs sed -i 's/\bkzfree\b/kfree_sensitive/' >> >> followed by some editing of the kfree_sensitive() kerneldoc and adding >> a kzfree backward compatibility macro in slab.h. >> >> ... >> >> --- a/include/linux/slab.h >> +++ b/include/linux/slab.h >> @@ -186,10 +186,12 @@ void memcg_deactivate_kmem_caches(struct mem_cgroup *, struct mem_cgroup *); >> */ >> void * __must_check krealloc(const void *, size_t, gfp_t); >> void kfree(const void *); >> -void kzfree(const void *); >> +void kfree_sensitive(const void *); >> size_t __ksize(const void *); >> size_t ksize(const void *); >> >> +#define kzfree(x) kfree_sensitive(x) /* For backward compatibility */ >> + > What was the thinking here? Is this really necessary? > > I suppose we could keep this around for a while to ease migration. But > not for too long, please. > It should be there just for 1 release cycle. I have broken out the btrfs patch to the btrfs list and I didn't make the kzfree to kfree_sensitive conversion there as that patch was in front in my patch list. So depending on which one lands first, there can be a window where the compilation may fail without this workaround. I am going to send out another patch in the next release cycle to remove it.
Cheers, Longman
| |