Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Mon, 15 Jun 2020 15:03:32 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
To:     Denis Efremov <efremov@linux.com>
Cc:     Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>, Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@lip6.fr>,
        cocci@systeme.lip6.fr, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] coccinelle: api: add kzfree script
Message-ID: <20200615120332.GJ4282@kadam>
References: <20200604140805.111613-1-efremov@linux.com>
 <e4981fd76a88e18376c4e634c235501b57d321e7.camel@perches.com>
 <345c783b-a8cf-9dd1-29c6-d32b9b29053f@linux.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <345c783b-a8cf-9dd1-29c6-d32b9b29053f@linux.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 10:42:54PM +0300, Denis Efremov wrote:
> On 6/4/20 7:27 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Thu, 2020-06-04 at 17:08 +0300, Denis Efremov wrote:
> >> Check for memset() with 0 followed by kfree().
> > 
> > Perhaps those uses should be memzero_explicit or kvfree_sensitive.
> > 
> 
> Is it safe to suggest to use kzfree instead of memzero_explicit && kfree?
> Or it would be better to use kvfree_sensitive in this case.
> 
> kzfree uses memset(0) with no barrier_data.

Yeah.  That seems buggy.  It should have a barrier.  Also I thought I
saw somewhere that Linus doesn't like the name and so that's why we have
the _sensitive() name?

regards,
dan carpenter