Anthony Liguori writes:
> Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> This still aborts on qemu_realloc(NULL, 0), even with
>> CONFIG_ZERO_MALLOC. Intentional?
>>
> I guess not. Should it? Seems like a very strange case..
It is a strange case, but I think the point of this commit is not to
abort on condit
Markus Armbruster wrote:
Anthony Liguori writes:
qemu_malloc() does not allow size=0 to be passed in and aborts on this behavior.
Unfortunately, there is good reason to believe that within qemu, there are a
number of, so far, undetected places that assume size=0 can be safely passed.
Since
Anthony Liguori writes:
> qemu_malloc() does not allow size=0 to be passed in and aborts on this
> behavior.
>
> Unfortunately, there is good reason to believe that within qemu, there are a
> number of, so far, undetected places that assume size=0 can be safely passed.
> Since we do not want to
qemu_malloc() does not allow size=0 to be passed in and aborts on this behavior.
Unfortunately, there is good reason to believe that within qemu, there are a
number of, so far, undetected places that assume size=0 can be safely passed.
Since we do not want to abort unnecessarily in production buil
