On 11.09.24 14:31, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 30, 2024 at 12:25:27AM +0200, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 07:14:18PM +0000, Benno Lossin wrote:
>>> On 16.08.24 02:11, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
>>>> +
>>>> + if layout.size() == 0 {
>>>> + // SAFETY: `src` has been created by `Self::alloc_store_data`.
>>>
>>> This is not true, consider:
>>>
>>> let ptr = alloc(size = 0);
>>> free(ptr)
>>>
>>> Alloc will return a dangling pointer due to the first if statement and
>>> then this function will pass it to `free_read_data`, even though it
>>> wasn't created by `alloc_store_data`.
>>> This isn't forbidden by the `Allocator` trait function's safety
>>> requirements.
>>>
>>>> + unsafe { Self::free_read_data(src) };
>>>> +
>>>> + return Ok(NonNull::slice_from_raw_parts(NonNull::dangling(), 0));
>>>> + }
>>>> +
>>>> + let dst = Self::alloc(layout, flags)?;
>>>> +
>>>> + // SAFETY: `src` has been created by `Self::alloc_store_data`.
>>>> + let data = unsafe { Self::data(src) };
>>>
>>> Same issue here, if the allocation passed in is zero size. I think you
>>> have no other choice than to allocate even for zero size requests...
>>> Otherwise how would you know that they are zero-sized.
>>
>> Good catch - gonna fix it.
>
> Almost got me. :) I think the code is fine, callers are not allowed to pass
> pointers to `realloc` and `free`, which haven't been allocated with the same
> corresponding allocator or are dangling.
But what about the example above (ie the `alloc(size = 0)` and then
`free`)? I guess this all depends on how one interprets the term
"existing, valid memory allocation". To me that describes anything an
`Allocator` returns via `alloc` and `realloc`, including zero-sized
allocations.
But if you argue that those are not valid allocations from that
allocator, then that is not properly documented in the safety
requirements of `Allocator`.
---
Cheers,
Benno
