On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 7:44 AM, Warner Losh <i...@bsdimp.com> wrote: > I agree completely. It doesn't do what you think it is doing, for all the > reasons that Bruce outlines. We thought it was a bad idea when it came up 2 > years ago and nothing has really changed.
I disagree. I'm not sure what you mean by "it doesn't do what you think it is doing." Do you think the manual page is unclear or needs more detail? It seems clear to me, but it also does what I think it does. Your description of two years ago is inaccurate — you thought it was a bad idea, and were the most vocal on the mailing list about it, but that viewpoint was not universally shared. In a pure headcount vote I think you were even outvoted, but as the initiative was headed by a non-committer, it sputtered out. If Bruce has made some important point or illumination, please highlight it. It's buried in the mostly nonsense wall of text boilerplate he usually includes. mallocarray serves an important function — a last ditch seatbelt against overflowing allocations that can trivially replace existing naive malloc calls containing multiplication. Trivial heap corruption is replaced with DoS — a strict improvement. That is all it does. Best, Conrad _______________________________________________ svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
