[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200611200530.GQ1079@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2020 16:05:30 -0400
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: mallocng switchover - opportunity to test
On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 10:33:06AM +0200, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> > > I'm not sure about this, and how it interacts with our definition of
> > > posix_memalign and memalign in terms of aligned_alloc.
> >
> > What do you think of this proposal:
> >
> > Have ldso track both whether malloc was replaced and whether
> > aligned_alloc was replaced. If malloc was replaced but aligned_alloc
> > wasn't, aligned_alloc fails with ENOMEM. If both were replaced and our
> > internal aligned_alloc still gets called, assume some sort of wrapping
> > is going on and allow it to proceed.
> >
> > With mallocng, this is "safe" against misuse in the sense that it will
> > trap rather than corrupting memory if the contract is violated.
>
> sounds good to me.
As of commit 1fc67fc117f9d25d240d46bbef78ebccacec7097 it should behave
as proposed here. Does this look/behave like what you expected?
Rich
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
