From owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Dec 17 09:26:44 2007 Return-Path: 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 7CE5B16A418; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 09:26:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dan@obluda.cz) Received: from smtp1.kolej.mff.cuni.cz (smtp1.kolej.mff.cuni.cz [78.128.192.4]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E2E713C4E5; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 09:26:43 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dan@obluda.cz) X-Envelope-From: dan@obluda.cz X-DomainKeys: Sendmail DomainKeys Filter v0.6.0 smtp1.kolej.mff.cuni.cz lBH9QSPR078403 Received: from kulesh.obluda.cz (openvpn.ms.mff.cuni.cz [195.113.20.87]) by smtp1.kolej.mff.cuni.cz (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id lBH9QSPR078403; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 10:26:29 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from dan@obluda.cz) Message-ID: <476640AC.1050002@obluda.cz> Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 10:26:04 +0100 From: Dan Lukes User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.8.1.9) Gecko/20071109 SeaMonkey/1.1.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: das@freebsd.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-2; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org, bug-followup@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: bin/83347: [patch] improper handling of malloc failures within libc's vfprintf X-BeenThere: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 09:26:44 -0000 Sure ? Pointer value of 0 is nothing "magic" for hardware - it's legal to write to memory offset 0 unless blocked by explicit configuration. It's OS decision to block writes to offset 0. Are you sure it's true for all supported platforms ? Yes, I know it's valid for i386/AMD. In advance - did you tried in even on platforms that will be supported in the future ? In my humble opinion, the one abort() in that special case, even if just for sure, has value. > This situation can only arise if the > programmer has asked printf() to handle a very long and bizarre series > of positional arguments after exhausting all available virtual memory, > so hopefully this won't be a big deal. It's normal that exceptions occur rare. Despite of it, the nice programmers shall handle it. As you just closed the case I understand your don't want discussion about it. No problem - you are commiter - it's your sovereign decision. Sincerely Dan