[U-Boot] [PATCH] Prevent malloc with size 0

[Joakim Tjernlund]

Mike Frysinger <vapier at gentoo.org> wrote on 2010/10/22 19:06:14:
>
> On Friday, October 22, 2010 12:40:07 Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> > Mike Frysinger wrote on 2010/10/22 17:18:05:
> > > On Friday, October 22, 2010 04:34:52 Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> > > > Don't you want to know if the app screwed up or if the system is out
> > > > of memory?
> > > >
> > > > The only upside to malloc(0) == NULL I can see is an extra check
> > > > for apps for which size == 0 is an error to the app too(something the
> > > > app should have checked itself long before calling malloc).
> > >
> > > if an app is doing malloc(0), it is broken.  i'm really not worried at
> > > all
> >
> > In your opinion, not mine and not POSIX either. I outlined uses for
> > malloc(0) earlier.
>
> i havent seen any realistic usage examples.  the only ones you quoted could
> easily be solved in a different way assuming they were even affected by
> malloc(0).

Scott was kind to provide an example(thanks Scott).

I never said it wasn't possible to workaround malloc(0) == NULL, I say that
you should not have to.

>
> > > about detecting OOM state.  my real world experience thus far has shown
> > > no actual problems with this behavior.  so unless you have some actual
> > > examples where this behavior "harms" u-boot, i say we merge the OP's
> > > patch.
> >
> > Since you think an app is broken if it does malloc(0), it should not matter
> > what malloc(0) returns to you. You only gain an extra error check for the
> > broken app at the expense of ease of use and sane error checking in
> > general.
>
> more like you notice that the code is broken right away.  the few times i have
> seen a malloc(0), it was do to errors elsewhere in the code and once those
> were fixed, malloc() wasnt called with a size 0.
>
> > I prefer not to make it easier for broken apps when it hurts elsewhere.
>
> funny, i can use the same logic to ban malloc(0).  it makes you notice & fix
> errors without penalties.

Not quite, first you should show that there aren't any
uses for malloc(0) != NULL as I have done

Actually POSIX doesn't say that malloc(0) is an error:
  Upon successful completion with size not equal to 0, malloc() shall return a pointer to the allocated space.
  If size is 0, either a null pointer or a unique pointer that can be successfully passed to free() shall be returned.
  Otherwise, it shall return a null pointer and set errno to indicate the error.

it only say that you can chose to return NULL or an unique ptr.

I don't think it is any value debating this any more though. You have
your view and I got mine.

>
> > Ah, IT changed some settings globally. I changed it back. I hope this reply
> > is better.
>
> yes, this is much better.  thanks !

Great, I really hate it when replies gets mangled too