On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 7:24 AM, Jeff Darcy <jdarcy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 04/30/2013 07:31 AM, Vijay Bellur wrote: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.
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.
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);
calloc() is doing the zeroing.. no?
Avati
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.
_______________________________________________
Gluster-devel mailing list
Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
