Hi all, On 11 January 2018 at 15:44, Daniel Stone <dan...@fooishbar.org> wrote: > On 10 January 2018 at 17:47, Simon McVittie <s...@collabora.com> wrote: >> I ask because the original authors of libdbus wrote it thinking that >> they had handled OOM conditions, at significant complexity cost, >> then later added infrastructure to simulate malloc() failures during >> automated testing and discovered that a significant fraction of them >> were mishandled (Havoc estimates "at least 5%" in [1]). Next month that >> test infrastructure will be 15 years old, and I'm *still* semi-regularly >> finding bugs in pre-existing code where malloc() failures are mishandled. > > I would agree with this. I've got a lot of trouble imagining the exact > scenario where malloc fails for our new zombie object during > destruction and then succeeds for the wl_closure allocation when we > next demarshal a message. I'd be inclined to keep this patch as-is.
Pekka somewhat agreed on IRC, and ultimately I went ahead and just landed things as-is last night. Thanks all! Cheers, Daniel _______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
