This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
hi,
ping?
http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2012-08/msg00639.html
with the updated patch here:
http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2012-08/msg00642.html
Regards, Siddhesh
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 18:32:07 +0530, Siddhesh wrote:
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 14:38:22 +0200, Andreas wrote:+ memset (p, 0, malloc_usable_size (p)); + free (p); + return 0;
In this case malloc_usable_size () should return >= 7, so I suggest to check for that value as well. The memset/free is a good idea!
When MALLOC_CHECK_ is exported as a positive value (which I am doing for this test), malloc_usable_size should return exactly 7, since the malloc_check code adds a magic number at p[7] if p is the mem pointer. Anything greater than that and the user may risk writing over the magic value and tripping an assertion during free.
But I get your point; I will add a check to ensure that usable_size == 7, lest it returns a value less than 7 due to some future bug. Updated patch attached.
Regards, Siddhesh
-- Andreas Jaeger aj@{suse.com,opensuse.org} Twitter/Identica: jaegerandi SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GF: Jeff Hawn,Jennifer Guild,Felix Imendörffer,HRB16746 (AG Nürnberg) GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |