[lkml]   [2007]   [Jun]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: SLUB: Return ZERO_SIZE_PTR for kmalloc(0)
    [Pekka Enberg - Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 07:37:01PM +0300]
    | On 6/4/07, Linus Torvalds <> wrote:
    | >Well, the red-zones won't catch readers, and more importantly, even for
    | >writers they are *really* inconvenient, because it will just tell you
    | >something bad happened, it won't tell you *where* it happened.
    | True.
    | On 6/4/07, Linus Torvalds <> wrote:
    | >Since comparing the addresses of two zero-sized allocations is insane and
    | >not done _anyway_, it's just much better to return an invalid address.
    | Then we might as well return your regular NULL pointer for zero-length
    | allocations as you can't do anything sane with ZERO_SIZE_PTR either.

    Hi Pekka,

    you know, I'm absolutely agree with you. Hey, kernel hackers don't blame
    me ;). But lets just take an example from a real life: I'm asking for
    someone to give me 50 cents he would probably give me this. But if I'm
    asking someone to give me 0 cents - he''ll give me nothing!!! Nobody
    giving me a spec. papper on which "zero cents" is written. :)
    So the code

    p = kmalloc(0);
    if (!p) {
    return -ENOMEM;

    is absolutely right - we physically have _no_ zero-sized memory. And as result
    we have no reason to keep spec. slab to track zero-sized allocs.

    Please, don't get me wrong, I'm not a kernel specialist...
    And sorry for meddling into coversation.


    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2007-06-04 20:25    [W:0.022 / U:16.164 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site