Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/10] Fix leaking of kernel heap addresses in net/

From: Dan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 21:51:04 -0500

> > 
> >> I want whatever you replace it with to be equivalent for
> >> object tracking purposes.
> > 
> > In nearly all of the cases I fixed, the socket inode is already
> > provided, which serves as a perfectly good unique identifier.  Would you
> > prefer I include that information twice?
> 
> The problem is that the socket inode is not available in a certain
> subclass of cases, so the transformation is not equivalent.
> 
> Why not attack this at the heart of where your concern is, and hack
> the %p format handling to do whatever it is you like instead of
> patching code all over the tree?

This has already been suggested, and I agree it is a much better
approach.  If I take this approach, and find some suitable substitute
for those cases where the socket inode is not available, will you
consider these changes?

-Dan