Best Regards BaiYang baiyang@gmail.com http://i.baiy.cn |
From: Szabolcs NagyDate: 2022-09-20 02:14To: baiyangSubject: Re: Re: [musl] The heap memory performance (malloc/free/realloc) is significantly degraded in musl 1.2 (compared to 1.1)* baiyang <baiyang@gmail.com> [2022-09-20 01:40:48 +0800]:> I looked at the code of tcmalloc, but I didn't find any of the problems you mentioned in the implementation of malloc_usable_size (see: https://github.com/google/tcmalloc/blob/9179bb884848c30616667ba129bcf9afee114c32/tcmalloc/tcmalloc.cc#L1099 ).>> On the contrary, similar to musl, tcmalloc also directly uses the return value of malloc_usable_size in its realloc implementation to determine whether memory needs to be reallocated: https://github.com/google/tcmalloc/blob/9179bb884848c30616667ba129bcf9afee114c32/tcmalloc/tcmalloc.cc#L1499>> I think this is enough to show that the return value of malloc_usable_size in tcmalloc is accurate and reliable, otherwise its own realloc will cause a segment fault.obviously internally the implementation can use the internal chunk size...GetSize(p) is not the exact size (that the user allocated) but an internalsize (which may be larger) and that must not be exposed *outside* of themalloc implementation (other than for diagnostic purposes).you can have 2 views:(1) tcmalloc and jemalloc are buggy because they expose an internalthat must not be exposed (becaues it can break user code).(2) user code is buggy if it uses malloc_usable_size for any purposeother than diagnostic/statistics (because other uses are brokenon many implementations).either way the brokenness you want to support is a security hazardand you are lucky that musl saves the day: it works hard not toexpose internal sizes so the code you seem to care about can operatesafely (which is not true on tcmalloc and jemalloc: the compilermay break that code).