On 30 Mar 2005 Daniel THOMPSON daniel.thompson@st.com wrote:
Stefan Huelswitt wrote:
Wow, this is cool. How did you get the idea to search in that direction?
I got the idea from the reading your patch and the premise that it was unlikely that there was a bug in glibc.
Put simply I *never* blame core software like glibc or the compiler for bugs unless it is proved to me. These bits of software are so widely used that while blaming them is not *always* wrong it usually saves a lot of time to audit your own code first. Also I've met Ulrich Drepper and wouldn't want to let him catch me blaming glibc for something it didn't do.
Right, I wasn't pretty sure but as I'm using an older glibc version it might have been fixed in current version...
What about this?
if (description!=NULL && (n != 4 || isempty(description)))
Looks fine to me. For belt and braces we should probably also assert that description is NULL when we enter the call (or test it and free it).
From my investigations, I can say that it seems to be NULL
always (I checked this, because this was my first idea for the leak).
Regards.