| To: | Tobias DiPasquale <toby@xxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] kfree_skb() bug in 2.4.22 |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 8 Oct 2003 07:11:59 -0700 |
| Cc: | jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, coreteam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, netfilter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, akpm@xxxxxxxxxx, kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, pekkas@xxxxxxxxxx, jmorris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <1065622303.1512.41.camel@localhost> |
| References: | <1065617075.1514.29.camel@localhost> <3F840C9C.9050704@xxxxxxxxx> <1065622303.1512.41.camel@localhost> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 10:11:43 -0400 Tobias DiPasquale <toby@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > Well, I certainly have done that already ;-) But I have checked kfree() > and vfree() and they have a sanity check for NULL before processing, as > well as those are also the well-known semantics for the userspace free() > call. So what? Those are totally different APIs and they in no way determine how other interfaces should behave. Passing NULL pointers around usually indicates poorly designed software anyways (unless the NULL pointer is being returned by a routine to indicate an allocation failure). This isn't even worth discussing anymore. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH] kfree_skb() bug in 2.4.22, Tobias DiPasquale |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | ethtool + tg3 v2.2 + set_pauseparam() = kernel 2.6-t6 segfault, Marc . Herbert |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] kfree_skb() bug in 2.4.22, Tobias DiPasquale |
| Next by Thread: | [RFC][0/2] remove atm_find_ci(); convert vcc_sklist to hash, chas williams |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |