Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 22:20:03 GMT From: Garrett Cooper <gcooper@FreeBSD.org> To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: kern/144307: ENOENT set unnecessarily under certain circumstances when malloc is called / fails Message-ID: <201006282220.o5SMK3E5066344@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The following reply was made to PR kern/144307; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Garrett Cooper <gcooper@FreeBSD.org>
To: Jaakko Heinonen <jh@freebsd.org>
Cc: bug-followup@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: kern/144307: ENOENT set unnecessarily under certain circumstances
when malloc is called / fails
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 15:17:32 -0700
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 1:10 PM, Jaakko Heinonen <jh@freebsd.org> wrote:
> On 2010-06-28, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>> =A0 =A0 Or the malloc(3) call could be fixed with the couple of lines I
>> noted (well, adlibbed of course...
>>
>> =A0 =A0 Which I agree with, but shouldn't we fix malloc(3) (and any othe=
r
>> function calls that depend on malloc(3) for sensible results)?
>
> It's not required for POSIX compliance at least. Did you actually read
> the quotes from POSIX?
>
> "The value of errno should only be examined when it is indicated to be
> valid by a function's return value."
>
> "The setting of errno after a successful call to a function is
> unspecified unless the description of that function specifies that errno
> shall not be modified."
>
> In other words the value of errno is undefined and shouldn't be
> examined unless malloc(3) returns NULL.
Ok. The bsdlabel(8) item is valid, but in the meantime I'll write
some testcases for read(2) to see whether or not I can find the
recreate the failing condition when =3D=3D -1. Worst case we'll have more
testcases to put in the tree...
Thanks!
-Garrett
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201006282220.o5SMK3E5066344>