romenskiy2012/jemalloc
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/jemalloc/jemalloc.git synced 2026-07-24 09:37:22 +03:00
Code Issues Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity

Rename zero_realloc option "strict" to "alloc".

Browse source 
With realloc(ptr, 0) being UB per C23, the option name "strict" makes less sense
now.  Rename to "alloc" which describes the behavior.
This commit is contained in:
Qi Wang 2022-04-15 12:17:59 -07:00 • committed by Qi Wang
parent 5841b6dbe7
commit 0e29ad4efa
7 changed files with 16 additions and 16 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

6
doc/jemalloc.xml.in
View file

@ -1580,19 +1580,19 @@ malloc_conf = "xmalloc:true";]]></programlisting>
</term>
<listitem><para> Determines the behavior of
<function>realloc()</function> when passed a value of zero for the new
size. <quote>strict</quote> treats this as an allocation of size zero
size. <quote>alloc</quote> treats this as an allocation of size zero
(and returns a non-null result except in case of resource exhaustion).
<quote>free</quote> treats this as a deallocation of the pointer, and
returns <constant>NULL</constant> without setting
<varname>errno</varname>. <quote>abort</quote> aborts the process if
zero is passed. The default is <quote>strict</quote>.</para>
zero is passed. The default is <quote>alloc</quote>.</para>
<para>There is considerable divergence of behaviors across
implementations in handling this case. Many have the behavior of
<quote>free</quote>. This can introduce security vulnerabilities, since
a <constant>NULL</constant> return value indicates failure, and the
continued validity of the passed-in pointer (per POSIX and C11).
<quote>strict</quote> is safe, but can cause leaks in programs that
<quote>alloc</quote> is safe, but can cause leaks in programs that
expect the common behavior. Programs intended to be portable and
leak-free cannot assume either behavior, and must therefore never call
realloc with a size of 0. The <quote>abort</quote> option enables these