More zalloc: fix default initialisation of some allocated objects #997
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
| @@ -135,6 +135,7 @@ BIO *BIO_new_NDEF(BIO *out, ASN1_VALUE *val, const ASN1_ITEM *it) | |||
| ndef_aux->ndef_bio = sarg.ndef_bio; | |||
| ndef_aux->boundary = sarg.boundary; | |||
| ndef_aux->out = out; | |||
| ndef_aux->derbuf = NULL; | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
not needed because of the zalloc call.
FdaSilvaYY
force-pushed
the
more-zalloc2
branch
2 times, most recently
from
d0ef38a
to
5107efa
Compare
FdaSilvaYY
changed the title
FdaSilvaYY
force-pushed
the
more-zalloc2
branch
4 times, most recently
from
6b9617c
to
3e2f7b4
Compare
|
To make sure I get it: the first commit is for 1.0.2/1.0.1 and the first and second are for master? |
|
Yes, that's it. |
FdaSilvaYY
force-pushed
the
more-zalloc2
branch
from
3e2f7b4
to
67bf9cf
Compare
| if (b == NULL) | ||
| return 0; | ||
|
|
||
| b->peer = NULL; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
No. The null pointer isn't necessarily all 0 bits. See http://c-faq.com/null/runtime0.html
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That being said, I may have missed this in early similar PRs...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
No, we only run on platforms where NULL is all-bits-zero. See test/nptest.c
FdaSilvaYY
force-pushed
the
more-zalloc2
branch
5 times, most recently
from
d3e5960
to
d075d2c
Compare
FdaSilvaYY
force-pushed
the
more-zalloc2
branch
3 times, most recently
from
887d797
to
c3288b7
Compare
|
Ping @levitte |
FdaSilvaYY
force-pushed
the
more-zalloc2
branch
5 times, most recently
from
c1c31db
to
244ce06
Compare
FdaSilvaYY
force-pushed
the
more-zalloc2
branch
2 times, most recently
from
e323d67
to
d3e647a
Compare
|
@levitte is this good to go? |
|
Yes, looks good to me |
|
Sorry, @levitte - was that a plus one? |
|
Yes, sorry for the confusion. +1 |
mattcaswell
added
the
approval: done
|
done. |
levitte
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 29, 2016
Reviewed-by: Richard Levitte <levitte@openssl.org> Reviewed-by: Matt Caswell <matt@openssl.org> Reviewed-by: Rich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org> (Merged from #997)
levitte
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 29, 2016
Reviewed-by: Richard Levitte <levitte@openssl.org> Reviewed-by: Matt Caswell <matt@openssl.org> Reviewed-by: Rich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org> (Merged from #997)
FdaSilvaYY
added a commit
to FdaSilvaYY/openssl
that referenced
this pull request
May 29, 2016
Backport of 8e89e85 From PR openssl#1019 / openssl#997
levitte
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 31, 2016
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
1st commit is intended to be back-ported.
So, I revert some of his changes in the second commit directly.