From owner-freebsd-hackers  Thu Mar 20 07:27:13 1997
Return-Path: <owner-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id HAA18845
          for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 20 Mar 1997 07:27:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from etinc.com (et-gw-fr1.etinc.com [204.141.244.98])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id HAA18840
          for <hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Thu, 20 Mar 1997 07:27:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ntws (ntws.etinc.com [204.141.95.142]) by etinc.com (8.8.3/8.6.9) with SMTP id KAA16805; Thu, 20 Mar 1997 10:31:05 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970320102606.00b2adb0@etinc.com>
X-Sender: dennis@etinc.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32)
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 10:26:09 -0500
To: dg@root.com
From: dennis <dennis@etinc.com>
Subject: Re: insight on malloc crash... 
Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

At 05:52 PM 3/19/97 -0800, David Greenman wrote:
>>Can anyone give some insight on why the following code might
>>panic v2.2 (while it has been working happily since 1.x)
>>
>>p=malloc(size,M_DEVBUF,M_WAITOK);
>>if (p)
>>	bzero(p,size)
>>
>>
>>bzero is panicing....did something change? this stuff isnt very
>>well document :/
>
>   The only thing that comes to mind off-hand is that "size" might be
>bogus (either 0 or way too large). Is the panic on the first byte zeroed,
>or is it some amount into the malloced area?

FYI:

The answer, if anyone is interested, is that in 2.2 the userland prototype
(in string.h) is
not compatible with the kernel version in sys/systm.h, even though the 'c'
call is the
same.

Dennis