My bad, sorry for wasting your time.
Ron
"Stefan Esser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in bericht
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Hello,
>
> this issue was already cleared as bogus
>
> safe_emalloc already takes care of the one extra byte that should get
added.
>
> safe_emalloc does allocate param1 * par
Hello,
this issue was already cleared as bogus
safe_emalloc already takes care of the one extra byte that should get added.
safe_emalloc does allocate param1 * param2 + param3 bytes
result = (unsigned char *)safe_emalloc(((length + 2) / 3) * 4, sizeof(char),
1);
would become
result = (unsigned ch
Forgot to add that in my specific case valgrind mentioned an illegal read
and write of 1 byte.
Ron
"Andi Gutmans" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in bericht
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Do you have a patch which you think should be applied? If not, can you
send
> a reproducing script (a short one). Maybe
A patch (I'm not familiar with the normal protocol) would simply be to
increase the allocated size by 1:
result = (unsigned char *)safe_emalloc(((length + 2) / 3) * 4, sizeof(char),
1);
would become
result = (unsigned char *)safe_emalloc(((length + 2) / 3) * 4 + 1,
sizeof(char), 1);
But I must
Do you have a patch which you think should be applied? If not, can you send
a reproducing script (a short one). Maybe you want to run it through
valgrind and see where the damage is done.
Andi
At 04:44 PM 12/28/2004 +0100, Ron Korving wrote:
Hi,
I'm not sure how to test what I noticed, so I figu
