On 06.05.2014 2:59, Warner Losh wrote: > Stupid is as stupid does. malloc and realloc both have this same issue. While > an interesting theoretical attack, the size doesn’t necessarily come from > multiplication. Careful coding is still required, not matter what spin you > put on this. reallocf() solves the memory leak issue, but not the problem > with overflow (which the realloc() interface has too). The caller can check > to make sure they aren’t requesting too much memory and overflowing. The > interface isn’t designed to solve the problem you are complaining about. > > There’s only so much you can do to prevent programming errors. calloc() isn’t > going to solve the world’s problems for you, and introduces a non-trivial > amount of overhead for the trivial amount of overhead that is “saved” by > moving the overflow check from the caller to the callee...
I agree completely. -- http://ache.vniz.net/
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
