From owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Jun 28 22:21:20 2010
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90E9D1065670;
	Mon, 28 Jun 2010 22:21:20 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from brde@optusnet.com.au)
Received: from mail08.syd.optusnet.com.au (mail08.syd.optusnet.com.au
	[211.29.132.189])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1579E8FC16;
	Mon, 28 Jun 2010 22:21:19 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from besplex.bde.org (c122-106-145-25.carlnfd1.nsw.optusnet.com.au
	[122.106.145.25])
	by mail08.syd.optusnet.com.au (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id
	o5SMLHRG023747
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO);
	Tue, 29 Jun 2010 08:21:18 +1000
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 08:21:17 +1000 (EST)
From: Bruce Evans <brde@optusnet.com.au>
X-X-Sender: bde@besplex.bde.org
To: Jaakko Heinonen <jh@freebsd.org>
In-Reply-To: <201006282020.o5SKK3OG063671@freefall.freebsd.org>
Message-ID: <20100629081501.K2710@besplex.bde.org>
References: <201006282020.o5SKK3OG063671@freefall.freebsd.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Cc: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: kern/144307: ENOENT set unnecessarily under certain
 circumstances when malloc is called / fails
X-BeenThere: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bug reports <freebsd-bugs.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-bugs>,
	<mailto:freebsd-bugs-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-bugs>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-bugs-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-bugs>,
	<mailto:freebsd-bugs-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 22:21:20 -0000

On Mon, 28 Jun 2010, Jaakko Heinonen wrote:

> On 2010-06-28, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> >     Or the malloc(3) call could be fixed with the couple of lines I
> > noted (well, adlibbed of course...
> >
> >     Which I agree with, but shouldn't we fix malloc(3) (and any other
> > 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
                                        unspecified
> examined unless malloc(3) returns NULL.

Not quite even then.  malloc(0) may return NULL, so errno shouldn't
be examined unless malloc() returns NULL and its arg (when converted
to a size_t) is nonzero.

Maybe more of these bugs could be found by setting errno to EDOOFUS in
malloc() and other commonly used library functions :-).  This is easier
to recognize than say ENOTTY from isatty() in stream initialization on
non-ttys.

Bruce