From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Feb 19 09:43:34 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1670C16A4CE
	for <current@freebsd.org>; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 09:43:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (critter.freebsd.dk [212.242.86.163])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FA4743D2F
	for <current@freebsd.org>; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 09:43:33 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from phk@phk.freebsd.dk)
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by critter.freebsd.dk (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i1JHhObq001979;
	Thu, 19 Feb 2004 18:43:24 +0100 (CET)
	(envelope-from phk@phk.freebsd.dk)
To: kientzle@acm.org
From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 19 Feb 2004 08:45:00 PST."
             <4034E80C.5060505@kientzle.com> 
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 18:43:24 +0100
Message-ID: <1978.1077212604@critter.freebsd.dk>
cc: current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: standard error handling for malloc() broken for user root and
	group wheel 
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 17:43:34 -0000

In message <4034E80C.5060505@kientzle.com>, Tim Kientzle writes:
>Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>> In message <4034700C.9090107@kientzle.com>, Tim Kientzle writes:
>> 
>>>Aborting the program
>>>on a failure to allocate memory is pretty clearly a violation
>>>of the standard, which requires the malloc function to
>>>always return.
>> 
>> There is neither requirements nor guarantees how any function in
>> the ansi/iso regime reacts if you grossly violate the API or stomp
>> on random memory.
>
>If malloc's internal data structures are corrupted, I
>completely agree that a prompt abort is appropriate.
>
>My concern is that the current 'A' flag aborts on a failure
>to allocate, which is not a "gross violation" of the API.

Right, it's my mistake that this was still there, it should have
been removed a couple of years ago.

It is removed in the patch I posted earlier.

-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.