From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail172.messagelabs.com (mail172.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.3]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE8806B0092 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 2009 10:51:19 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: [patch 1/8] slab: introduce kzfree() From: Pekka Enberg In-Reply-To: References: <20090216142926.440561506@cmpxchg.org> <20090216144725.572446535@cmpxchg.org> <20090216152751.GA27520@cmpxchg.org> Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 17:51:16 +0200 Message-Id: <1234885876.11511.3.camel@penberg-laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Christoph Lameter Cc: Johannes Weiner , Andrew Morton , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Matt Mackall , Nick Piggin List-ID: On Tue, 2009-02-17 at 10:08 -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote: > Why would you want to zero an object on release? Is this for security? > > Please give us some rationale for this. Do we need free on zero now for > all allocators? All the call-sites zero out before kfree() for security reasons. But yeah, we should put that in the patch description as well. Johannes, I suppose it would make sense to resend the series to Andrew with all the updates? Pekka -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org