From owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Dec 17 09:30:04 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@hub.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E923616A4C1 for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 09:30:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::28]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA19A13C4CE for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 09:30:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (gnats@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id lBH9U46q018134 for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 09:30:04 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.2/8.14.1/Submit) id lBH9U444018127; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 09:30:04 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 09:30:04 GMT Message-Id: <200712170930.lBH9U444018127@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org From: Dan Lukes Cc: 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 Reply-To: Dan Lukes List-Id: Bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 09:30:05 -0000 The following reply was made to PR bin/83347; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Dan Lukes To: das@freebsd.org Cc: bug-followup@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: bin/83347: [patch] improper handling of malloc failures within libc's vfprintf Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 10:26:04 +0100 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