[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       musl
Subject:    Re: [musl] mallocng switchover - opportunity to test
From:       Szabolcs Nagy <nsz () port70 ! net>
Date:       2020-06-12 17:42:00
Message-ID: 20200612174200.GA2048759 () port70 ! net
[Download RAW message or body]

* Rich Felker <dalias@libc.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.
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]