[U-Boot] [PATCH] Prevent malloc with size 0

[Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org>]

On Friday, October 22, 2010 03:37:43 Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote on 2010/10/22 09:20:22:
> > On Friday, October 22, 2010 02:10:16 Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> > > does not set errno which screws error handling. One have to bend over
> > > just to cope with this.
> > 
> > that depends on your implementation.  in u-boot, there really is no
> > "errno"
> 
> Yes, and that and that is even worse. How do you tell if you are out of
> memory or not? Checking size == 0 after the fact? Then you could do that
> before calling malloc in the first place.

i still dont see any real world (or even theoretical) need for malloc(0).  so 
the issue of error checking is irrelevant until you can come up with one.

> > the concept of an invalid pointer is pretty arch-specific.  and it changes
> > the semantics of what the vast majority of coders (and their code) out
> > there expect -- NULL means error while non-NULL means success.
> 
> hardly as glibc returns a non NULL ptr. Changing this would probably
> break apps, making them think they are out of memory.

funny because i have no problem running software on top of uClibc.  and it 
does do malloc(0) == NULL.

just visit http://wh0rd.org/ and marvel at all the software running perfectly 
fine on uClibc.  apache/openssh/openvpn/php/gd/git/svn/... 

> non null still what it is supposed to mean, you successfully allocated
> 0 bytes.

POSIX clearly labels it "implementation defined" which means "no sane portable 
programmer may rely on its behavior"

> > a better question might be "why isnt a NULL pointer on your platform an
> > invalid pointer" ?  ive added a simple CONFIG define for Blackfin users
> > to do just that -- make access to the low 1KiB of memory generate an
> > exception.  it does so with pretty much 0 runtime overhead.
> 
> You lost me here. How does this relate to the issue before us?

you're asking for an invalid pointer.  the presumption is that you want it so 
that attempts to access it will fail.  if that isnt the case, i have no idea 
why you want malloc(0) to return an "invalid pointer" that isnt NULL.

btw, could you please fix your mailer.  it constantly destroys quoted context.
-mike
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20101022/483fb45d/attachment.pgp