Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 13:17:41 -0400 From: Bob Hall <rjhjr0@gmail.com> To: RW <rwmaillists@googlemail.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Password theft from memory? Message-ID: <20110428171740.GA5840@stainmore> In-Reply-To: <20110428001010.13a76d07@gumby.homeunix.com> References: <20110425151536.GA61425@stainmore> <BANLkTinvvWhEy_A5ao=XWTpQOSTX0Vm2_A@mail.gmail.com> <20110425175420.GA61811@stainmore> <20110425232908.4104e026@gumby.homeunix.com> <20110426025614.GA62745@stainmore> <20110426104151.596bcc19@gumby.homeunix.com> <BANLkTikQzhmyXkCeSzzG-o%2Bz0L3ohNt2YQ@mail.gmail.com> <20110427014554.1e4c5281@gumby.homeunix.com> <20110427095420.GA41208@kongemord.krig.net> <20110428001010.13a76d07@gumby.homeunix.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 12:10:10AM +0100, RW wrote: > I'm not saying that anonymous mappings used by malloc aren't > zero-filled, just that it's not mentioned anywhere in the mmap man > page. I think it's just taken as read. I just got what you're trying to say. Unfortunately, your quotes mislead me about what you were concerned about. You're right, the man page doesn't explicitly state whether anonymous mappings are zero filled or not. Since man pages prioritize concision, I would expect the page to explain how anonymous mappings are different from other mappings, but not how they are the same.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110428171740.GA5840>