Re: catching unitialized structures

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 04/30/2013 07:31 AM, Vijay Bellur wrote:
On 04/30/2013 06:10 AM, Jeff Darcy wrote:
On 04/29/2013 01:38 PM, Vijay Bellur wrote:
There are a lot of places where we make an
implicit assumption that GF_CALLOC and the likes memset the memory area
to zero.

Actually I was a bit disturbed recently when I found that at least one
member of that family (don't remember which) *doesn't* do that.  I meant
to go through and check which code relied on that unmet assumption, but
then something else came up and I never got back to it.



I did a quick scan of mem-pool.c but failed to notice anything obvious. If you
happen to notice it again, it should be worth a patch.


Mem-pool does zero memory, but none of GF_CALLOC, GF_MALLOC, or GF_REALLOC do. For example, GF_CALLOC just calls __gf_calloc which just calls calloc.

 108         req_size = nmemb * size;
 109         tot_size = req_size + GF_MEM_HEADER_SIZE + GF_MEM_TRAILER_SIZE;
 110
 111         ptr = calloc (1, tot_size);

The only thing after that is gf_mem_set_acct_info, which doesn't (and shouldn't) zero memory. Nonetheless, the assumption you refer to is common in code which calls these functions. Code which has been converted to use mem-pool is safe, but that leaves a lot of code which is still unsafe.



[Index of Archives]     [Gluster Users]     [Ceph Users]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [eCos]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]

  Powered by Linux