[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: lynx-dev memory leaks vs corruption
From: |
David Woolley |
Subject: |
Re: lynx-dev memory leaks vs corruption |
Date: |
Sun, 6 Dec 1998 12:02:28 +0000 (GMT) |
>
> how does that corrupt memory?
> surely, if it's been freed, it's not there to be freed again.
Typically the program says free the memory at this address. The program
still has "this address" when it tries to free again. Unless the
memory allocator takes steps to ensure that what is at "this address"
is allocated memory, it can end up corrupting its free memory list.
It is relatively expensive to check this compared with simply taking
the value on trust.
Some programs can be very intensive in their use of malloc, so it needs
to be fast.
- Re: lynx-dev 2-8-1 bug: print vs partial, (continued)
Re: lynx-dev 2-8-1 bug: print vs partial, Leonid Pauzner, 1998/12/03
lynx-dev memory leaks vs corruption, Philip Webb, 1998/12/03
- Re: lynx-dev memory leaks vs corruption, Larry W. Virden, 1998/12/03
- Re: lynx-dev memory leaks vs corruption, pg, 1998/12/04
- Re: lynx-dev memory leaks vs corruption, Larry W. Virden, 1998/12/04
- Re: lynx-dev memory leaks vs corruption, Philip Webb, 1998/12/04
- Re: lynx-dev memory leaks vs corruption, mattack, 1998/12/04
- Re: lynx-dev memory leaks vs corruption, Larry W. Virden, 1998/12/04
- Re: lynx-dev memory leaks vs corruption,
David Woolley <=
Re: lynx-dev 2-8-1 bug: print vs partial, Philip Webb, 1998/12/03
Re: lynx-dev 2-8-1 bug: print vs partial, Philip Webb, 1998/12/04
Re: lynx-dev 2-8-1 bug: print vs partial, dickey, 1998/12/03
Re: lynx-dev 2-8-1 bug: print vs partial, dickey, 1998/12/03
Re: lynx-dev 2-8-1 bug: print vs partial, dickey, 1998/12/03