Re: malloc(0) returns an invalid address

JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 wrote:
>>>>>>On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 07:49:54 -0800, 
>>>>>>"David Schwartz" <davids_at_webmaster.com> said:
> 
>>>% ./a.out
>>>address of p is 0x800
>>>zsh: 645 segmentation fault (core dumped)  ./a.out
> 
>>	This should fault. Although the return value of 'malloc(0)' is a valid
>>pointer, once you cast it to a 'char *', you cannot dereference it because
>>it does not point to a character. This same problem would occur with
>>'malloc(1)' and 'int *'.
> 
> I expected the answer:-)  This is probably a matter of the definition
> of "validness", and I won't argue about this point.  (and, of course,
> it cannot be justified to dereference a zero-length pointer, whether
> the result is segfault or not)
> 
> BTW: the "same problem" (of segfault) does actually NOT occur with
> malloc(1) and int * on FreeBSD 5.3 (i386).  I suspect malloc(3) takes
> a special action with the size of zero.

man malloc(3) and look for options 'V' and 'X'.

>>>So, if we wanted to call 0x800 "a valid pointer just with
>>>not-enough-size", it would be fine.  But then we need to implement the
>>>same logic in the kernel to provide consistent behavior.  (I would
>>>"fix" the malloc behavior though).
> 
>>	The malloc behavior is not broken, so it cannot be fixed. The kernel check
>>semantics in 'useracc' are wrong for zero lengths.
> 
> Okay, I'll be happy as long as the library and the kernel provide the
> consistent behavior on which pointer is "valid".

-- 
Andre