[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200721204052.GR14669@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 16:40:53 -0400
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
To: Florian Weimer <fw@...eb.enyo.de>
Cc: Ariadne Conill <ariadne@...eferenced.org>, musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: perhaps we should add re[c]allocarray?
On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 08:58:04PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Rich Felker:
>
> > recallocarray presumably needs to zero the new part which means it
> > needs to know the old exact size, which means it depends on having
> > either knowledge of implementation internals or a working, exact
> > malloc_usable_size (AFAIK all legacy/existing ones except musl
> > mallocng are broken and return a value greater than the originally
> > allocated size).
>
> The caller has to pass the old member count to recallocarray, in an
> additional argument. I think this avoids this particular issue, and
> also makes it easy to achive interposition-safety.
Ah, great, that makes it a non-issue then, and in that case I have no
significant objections to it.
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.
