[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <684E2F7B-2680-41BF-86B7-E67BFB877B6F@linaro.org>
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2025 12:14:59 -0300
From: Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zanella@...aro.org>
To: Sam James <sam@...too.org>
Cc: Alejandro Colomar <alx@...nel.org>, Eric Blake <eblake@...hat.com>,
Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>, enh <enh@...gle.com>,
Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>, musl@...ts.openwall.com,
libc-alpha@...rceware.org, Joseph Myers <josmyers@...hat.com>,
nabijaczleweli@...ijaczleweli.xyz, Paul Eggert <eggert@...ucla.edu>,
Robert Seacord <rcseacord@...il.com>, Bruno Haible <bruno@...sp.org>,
bug-gnulib@....org, JeanHeyd Meneide <phdofthehouse@...il.com>,
Thorsten Glaser <tg@...bsd.de>
Subject: Re: Re: BUG: realloc(p,0) should be consistent with malloc(0)
> Em 21 de jun. de 2025, à(s) 09:12, Sam James <sam@...too.org> escreveu:
>
> Alejandro Colomar <alx@...nel.org> writes:
>
>> Hi Sam,
>>
>>> On Sat, Jun 21, 2025 at 04:57:32AM +0100, Sam James wrote:
>>> Alejandro Colomar <alx@...nel.org> writes:
>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> But the glibc maintainers mentioned that they're investigating about it
>>>> in distros, so I guess we'll eventually have the results of their
>>>> investigation.
>>>>
>>>
>>> To manage expectations: I haven't seen anyone say they're going to work
>>> on this. I recall Sid mentioning it *could* be done (not offering to do
>>> it) and Adhemerval made a similar remark, but I don't think anyone has
>>> said they're undertaking this work.
>>>
>>> If I've missed some other remark (very possible with the length of the
>>> thread!), let me know of course.
>>
>> Adhemerval mentioned in
>> Message-ID: <14fd8d0b-d32d-421f-8262-9c7ff9b1a22b@...aro.org>
>>
>> | So what I would expect to move this forwards will be to.
>
> The bit before that is important ;)
>
> That's where he said (and later corrected himself) that there was
> consensus, and so the next steps would be ...
>
>> |
>> | 1. Reopen https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12547
>> |
>> | 2. Follow the suggestions laid out by Siddhesh [2]. The Distribution-wide
>> | verification seems already to be in progress, with some good results
>> | from gnulib realloc replacement and some work by you on checking some
>> | other projects (systemd for instance).
>> |
>> | 3. Prepare the patch to change it, along with the manual documentation,
>> | regression testcase, and the NEW entry.
>> |
>> | 4. Since we are near to 2.42 release, this change should be done once
>> | 2.43 starts to give some time to check potential issue with rolling
>> | distros like Fedora Rawhide.
>
> I don't think anybody is doing such distro-wide work other than things
> using gnulib where we'd notice if tests started to fail. That's what I'm
> trying to clarify: please don't wait on anybody doing it, because
> nobody's declared they're working on it.
I do not plan to work on this, I had the very wrong idea that fixing this was not a contention point in glibc; but this thread proved me wrong.
My bullet points are how I envision if someone would want to track this on glibc (assuming he had some consensus em fixing it). I think now we are somewhat far from it…
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.
