Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2020 19:42:00 +0200 From: Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@...t70.net> To: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> Cc: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: mallocng switchover - opportunity to test * Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> [2020-06-11 16:05:30 -0400]: > 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? yes this works for me, thanks.
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.