A stock Linux system will happily slaughter your system services with the OOM
killer before malloc ever returns NULL.
Only if overcommit is activated, which is not a good idea in embedded
systems where busybox is likely to be used.
Also, resource limits are a thing, and proper administration
On 12/1/21 7:42 AM, tito wrote:
It can matter: consider large tar files on memory constrained devices.
tar may fail to complete correctly, due to running out of memory, and in
the process of running out of memory, may invoke the OOM killer in the
process, which might kill some other process.
On Wed, 1 Dec 2021 03:41:21 -0600 (CST)
Ariadne Conill wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 1 Dec 2021, David Laight wrote:
>
> > From: busybox On Behalf Of Ping Lee
> >> Sent: 01 December 2021 01:42
> >
> >> It seems that I found a bug on busybox version 1.34.1:
> >> In libbb/xfuncs_printf.c:50, malloc
Hi,
On Wed, 1 Dec 2021, David Laight wrote:
From: busybox On Behalf Of Ping Lee
Sent: 01 December 2021 01:42
It seems that I found a bug on busybox version 1.34.1:
In libbb/xfuncs_printf.c:50, malloc twice for archive_handle and
archive_hadle->fileheader with 184 and 72 bytes heap space.
From: busybox On Behalf Of Ping Lee
> Sent: 01 December 2021 01:42
> It seems that I found a bug on busybox version 1.34.1:
> In libbb/xfuncs_printf.c:50, malloc twice for archive_handle and
> archive_hadle->fileheader with 184 and 72 bytes heap space.
> Back to tar_main function, the two
>
