Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: BUG #2246: Bad malloc interactions: ecpg, openssl

From: Andrew Klosterman <andrew5(at)ece(dot)cmu(dot)edu>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: BUG #2246: Bad malloc interactions: ecpg, openssl
Date: 2006-02-14 21:15:17
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.53L-ECE.CMU.EDU.0602141612430.29413@blossom.pdl.cmu.edu (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugspgsql-patches
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006, Andrew Klosterman wrote:

> > We may be spending too much time on this one point --- as long as
> > Kerberos isn't *writing* into the zero-length alloc, there is nothing
> > illegal immoral or fattening about malloc(0).  Can you get ElectricFence
> > to not abort right here but continue on to the real problem?
> >
> > 			regards, tom lane
>
> Doing a "man efence" lets me know that setting the EF_ALLOW_MALLOC_0
> environment variable ought to let the program continue...  I'll check into
> that right now!
>
>
> --Andrew J. Klosterman
> andrew5(at)ece(dot)cmu(dot)edu

Well, when ElectricFence is allowed to ignore malloc() of zero bytes, my
program runs like a champ!  Might be associated with the replacement
malloc() that it installs to check for bugs, though.

(back to digging some more...)

--Andrew J. Klosterman
andrew5(at)ece(dot)cmu(dot)edu

In response to

pgsql-bugs by date

Next:From: Andrew KlostermanDate: 2006-02-14 21:35:28
Subject: Re: BUG #2246: Bad malloc interactions: ecpg, openssl
Previous:From: Stephen FrostDate: 2006-02-14 21:10:33
Subject: Re: BUG #2246: Bad malloc interactions: ecpg, openssl

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2006-02-14 21:17:57
Subject: Re: Patch Submission Guidelines
Previous:From: Stephen FrostDate: 2006-02-14 21:10:33
Subject: Re: BUG #2246: Bad malloc interactions: ecpg, openssl

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group