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

[Mike Frysinger]

On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 14:40, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> Marek Vasut <marek.vasut at gmail.com> wrote on 2012/04/02 20:00:03:
>> Dear Joakim Tjernlund,
>> > Depends, if writing generic code for lots of OS:es you cannot rely
>> > malloc(0). Writing kernel code you can.
>>
>> No you cannot. It's in the spec you cannot and you have to behave according to
>> the spec, not according to kernel.
>
> How so? The kernel is its own system and has it own rules and it is wise
> to follow them.

correct

>> > From Scotts example we already know there is kernel code that relies on
>> > malloc(0) not returning NULL.
>>
>> Sure, but that means the code is messed up.
>
> ohh, I don't think the kernel people will agree: http://lwn.net/Articles/236920/
> But feel free to bring it up.

i dislike the malloc(0) returning valid memory, but i'm fine with the
ZERO_SIZE_PTR idea.  i think we'd have to delegate this to arches
though to pick a pointer that'd work for them ... certainly the kernel
definition won't work for us:
  #define ZERO_SIZE_PTR ((void *)16)

address 0 and higher is valid memory on many platforms.  for Blackfin
systems, (-16) should work.
-mike