Re: [PATCH v6 22/26] rust: alloc: implement `Cmalloc` in module allocator_test

[Danilo Krummrich]

On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 01:32:31PM +0000, Benno Lossin wrote:
> On 11.09.24 14:31, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 30, 2024 at 12:25:27AM +0200, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> >> On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 07:14:18PM +0000, Benno Lossin wrote:
> >>> On 16.08.24 02:11, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> >>>> +
> >>>> +        if layout.size() == 0 {
> >>>> +            // SAFETY: `src` has been created by `Self::alloc_store_data`.
> >>>
> >>> This is not true, consider:
> >>>
> >>>     let ptr = alloc(size = 0);
> >>>     free(ptr)
> >>>
> >>> Alloc will return a dangling pointer due to the first if statement and
> >>> then this function will pass it to `free_read_data`, even though it
> >>> wasn't created by `alloc_store_data`.
> >>> This isn't forbidden by the `Allocator` trait function's safety
> >>> requirements.
> >>>
> >>>> +            unsafe { Self::free_read_data(src) };
> >>>> +
> >>>> +            return Ok(NonNull::slice_from_raw_parts(NonNull::dangling(), 0));
> >>>> +        }
> >>>> +
> >>>> +        let dst = Self::alloc(layout, flags)?;
> >>>> +
> >>>> +        // SAFETY: `src` has been created by `Self::alloc_store_data`.
> >>>> +        let data = unsafe { Self::data(src) };
> >>>
> >>> Same issue here, if the allocation passed in is zero size. I think you
> >>> have no other choice than to allocate even for zero size requests...
> >>> Otherwise how would you know that they are zero-sized.
> >>
> >> Good catch - gonna fix it.
> > 
> > Almost got me. :) I think the code is fine, callers are not allowed to pass
> > pointers to `realloc` and `free`, which haven't been allocated with the same
> > corresponding allocator or are dangling.
> 
> But what about the example above (ie the `alloc(size = 0)` and then
> `free`)?

This never has been valid for the `Allocator` trait. Look at `Kmalloc`,
`Vmalloc` and `KVmalloc`, they don't allow this either.

We've discussed this already in previous versions of this series, where for this
purpose, you asked for `old_layout` for `free`. Such that `free` can check if
the `size` was zero and therefore return without doing anything.

> I guess this all depends on how one interprets the term
> "existing, valid memory allocation". To me that describes anything an
> `Allocator` returns via `alloc` and `realloc`, including zero-sized
> allocations.

I argue that the dangling pointer returned for `size == 0` does not point to any
allocation in the sense of those allocators. It's just a dangling `[u8]`
pointer.

> But if you argue that those are not valid allocations from that
> allocator, then that is not properly documented in the safety
> requirements of `Allocator`. 

The safety requirements of `Allocator` where proposed by you and I thought they
consider this aspect?

`realloc` has:

"If `ptr == Some(p)`, then `p` must point to an existing and valid memory
allocation created by this allocator."

`free` has:

"`ptr` must point to an existing and valid memory allocation created by this
`Allocator` and must not be a dangling pointer."

We can add the part about the dangling pointer to `realloc` if you want.

> 
> ---
> Cheers,
> Benno
>