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

[Joakim Tjernlund]

vapierfilter at gmail.com wrote on 2012/04/02 21:14:14:
>
> 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.

Finding an invalid address would be ideal, but that might be hard even in arch code.
kmalloc(0) used to return a valid ptr up to 2.6.23 so this was never a big problem.
I guess one could try finding an invalid address in arch code anyway but let
board code override it if needed.