| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
gcc generates extremely bad code (7 byte immediate mov) for the old
null pointer write approach. it should be generating something like
"xor %eax,%eax ; mov %al,(%eax)". in any case, using a dedicated
crashing opcode accomplishes the same thing in one byte.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
a valid mmapped block will have an even (actually aligned) "extra"
field, whereas a freed chunk on the heap will always have an in-use
neighbor.
this fixes a potential bug if mmap ever allocated memory below the
main program/brk (in which case it would be wrongly-detected as a
double-free by the old code) and allows the double-free check to work
for donated memory outside of the brk area (or, in the future,
secondary heap zones if support for their creation is added).
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
even if size_t was 32-bit already, the fact that the value was
unsigned and that gcc is too stupid to figure out it would be positive
as a signed quantity (due to the immediately-prior arithmetic and
conditionals) results in gcc compiling the integer-to-float conversion
as zero extension to 64 bits followed by an "fildll" (64 bit)
instruction rather than a simple "fildl" (32 bit) instruction on x86.
reportedly fildll is very slow on certain p4-class machines; even if
not, the new code is slightly smaller.
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
the bug appeared only with requests roughly 2*sizeof(size_t) to
4*sizeof(size_t) bytes smaller than a multiple of the page size, and
only for requests large enough to be serviced by mmap instead of the
normal heap. it was only ever observed on 64-bit machines but
presumably could also affect 32-bit (albeit with a smaller window of
opportunity).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
if init_malloc returns positive (successful first init), malloc will
retry getting a chunk from the free bins rather than expanding the
heap again. also pass init_malloc a hint for the size of the initial
allocation.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
this change is made with some reluctance, but i think it's for the
best. correct programs must handle either behavior, so there is little
advantage to having malloc(0) return NULL. and i managed to actually
make the malloc code slightly smaller with this change.
|
|
|