On Mon, 2020-04-06 at 10:11 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 9:44 AM Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Dubious assertion. Both end up with zeroed memory. > > You don't understand the function. Another dubious assertion. > You ignored the part where the zeroed memory isn't even the _point_. > > Yes, for kzalloc() it is. There the zero is inherent and important. > People very much depend on it, and it's the whole point of that > function. The 'z' is not silent. > > But for kzfree() it really really isn't. There the zeroing is never > going to be seen by anybody wjho does the right thing, and is not > important at all - it's purely a "let's make sure old contents don't > leak". > > The "zero" part is completely immaterial, it could just as well have > been a "memset(0xaa)" instead. or memfill(0xdeadbeef). > And you didn't seem to understand that kzfree() shouldn't use memset() > in the first place, so it's not even using the same operation. > > You really don't seem to get the whole "kzfree() has absolutely > _nothing_ to do with kzalloc() apart from a dubious implementation > details". API function naming symmetry is good. You ignore or don't quote the kzfree/kfree_sensitive too. Yet I don't say _you_ don't understand something.
