[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2013 03:15:24 +0100
From: Luca Barbato <lu_zero@...too.org>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Removing sbrk and brk
On 22/12/13 00:40, Rich Felker wrote:
> Finally, another alternative might be leaving sbrk/brk alone and
> modifying malloc not to use the brk at all. This has been proposed
> several times (well, supporting non-brk allocation has been proposed
> anyway) to avoid spurious malloc failures when the brk cannot be
> extended, and if we support that we might as well just drop brk
> support in malloc (otherwise there's code with duplicate functionality
> and thus more bloat). So this might actually be the best long-term
> option. Switching malloc from using brk to PROT_NONE/mprotect (see the
> above idea for brk emulation) would also make the malloc
> implementation more portable to systems with no concept of brk.
> However this option would definitely be a post-1.0 development
> direction, and not something we could do right away (of course I'd
> probably hold off until after 1.0 for any of these changes since
> they're fairly invasive, except possibly the idea of making sbrk
> always-fail).
I'd add compile time and runtime warnings and plan for post-1.0
lu
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.
