On 07/04/12 11:43, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Wed, Jul 04, 2012 at 11:38:10AM +0200, Peter Krempa wrote:
On 07/04/12 11:09, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Wed, Jul 04, 2012 at 11:05:40AM +0200, Peter Krempa wrote:
vshCalloc function uses xalloc_oversized macro that can't take 0 as it's
second argument. If vshCalloc is called with size 0, virsh ends with a
floating point exception.
This patch changes vshCalloc to return NULL if no memory is requested.
---
tools/virsh.c | 3 +++
1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/virsh.c b/tools/virsh.c
index 53d1825..d3d5c6a 100644
--- a/tools/virsh.c
+++ b/tools/virsh.c
@@ -460,6 +460,9 @@ _vshCalloc(vshControl *ctl, size_t nmemb, size_t size, const char *filename, int
{
char *x;
+ if (!size)
+ return NULL;
+
if (!xalloc_oversized(nmemb, size) &&
IMHO this div-by-zero problem is a bug in the xalloc_oversized
macro & we should fix it there. The scenario seen here in virsh
is a fairly common and so div-by-zero could affect any other
usage of that macro
Yes it could. But the docs for the macro state that it shouldn't be called with 0 as the second argument:
/* Return 1 if an array of N objects, each of size S, cannot exist due
to size arithmetic overflow. S must be positive and N must be
nonnegative. This is a macro, not an inline function, so that it
works correctly even when SIZE_MAX < N.
But assuming that 0 elements of something will never overflow we could change the macro to:
from:
# ifndef xalloc_oversized
# define xalloc_oversized(n, s) \
((size_t) (sizeof(ptrdiff_t) <= sizeof(size_t) ? -1 : -2) / (s) < (n))
# endif
to:
(s?((size_t) (sizeof(ptrdiff_t) <= sizeof(size_t) ? -1 : -2) / (s) < (n)):0)
which would take care of the 0 argument.
Is this what you had in mind?
Yes, I think it is wrong to expect that 'S' must be non-zero,
so we should change the docs too.
I found the actual problem for this. I think that this macro is in
order. S is the size of the array element, which doesn't make sense to
be 0 and N is the count of elements. The floating point exception
happened because the count and size arguments were interchanged in the
problematic place. I'll send the patch anyways, but I don't think now,
that the macro requires fixing.
Peter
Daniel
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list