Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 17:21:03 -0600
From: Ariadne Conill <>
To: Rich Felker <>
Subject: Re: perhaps we should add re[c]allocarray?


On Tuesday, July 21, 2020 2:40:53 PM MDT you wrote:
> 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.

Okay great.  I will work on reallocarray() first and then follow up with 


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.