Linux- Out of Memory - c

I was trying to see the working of oom_kill by invoking manually.
I allocated memory dynamically and tried to use them infinitely with while loop at first and then with the for loop to test out of memory.
But in the first case where I used the while loop it threw segmentation fault without swap and became unresponsive with swap whereas with the for loop out of memory (oom_kill) was invoked.
Sample codes of both:
First case: while:
int main (void) {
char* p;
while (1) {
p=malloc(1<<20);
memset (p, 0, (1<<20));
}
}
Second case : for :
int main (void) {
int i, n = 0;
char *pp[N];
for (n = 0; n < N; n++) {
pp[n] = malloc(1<<20);
if (pp[n] == NULL)
break;
}
printf("malloc failure after %d MiB\n", n);
for (i = 0; i < n; i++) {
memset (pp[i], 0, (1<<20));
printf("%d\n", i+1);
}
where N is some very large number to invoke oom. Referred this https://www.win.tue.nl/~aeb/linux/lk/lk-9.html for 2nd case.
Why does it happen so? What is the mistake I'm making with the while loop?
Kernel version : 4.15

Why does it happen so?
To invoke the OOM killer, you need to have a situation where an access to memory cannot be fulfilled because there is not enough RAM available to fulfill the access. To do that, you want to first have large allocations (virtual memory mappings), then write to them.
The procedure to trigger the OOM killer is very simple:
Allocate lots of memory
Write to the allocated memory
You must have enough preallocated memory to cause everything evictable from RAM to be evicted (things like memory-mapped files), and all of swap to be used, before the kernel will evoke the OOM killer to provide more RAM/swap space to fullfill the backing to the virtual memory being written to.
What is the mistake I'm making with the while loop?
One bug, and one logical error.
The bug is, you do not check if malloc() returns NULL. malloc() returns NULL, when there is no more virtual memory available (or kernel refuses to provide more, for any reason) for the process. (In normal operation, the virtual memory available to each process is limited for non-privileged users; run e.g. ulimit -a to see the current limits.)
Because you access the memory immediately when allocated, the kernel simply refuses to allow your process more when it runs out of RAM and SWAP, and malloc() returns NULL. You then dereference the NULL pointer (by using memset(NULL, 0, 1<<20)), which causes the Segmentation fault.
The logical problem is that that scheme will not trigger the kernel OOM killer.
Remember, in order to trigger the kernel OOM killer, your process must have allocated memory that it has not accessed yet. The kernel evokes the OOM killer only when it has already provided the virtual memory, but cannot back it with actual RAM, because there is nothing evictable in RAM, and swap is already full.
In your case, the OOM killer will not get evoked, because when the kernel runs out of RAM and swap, it can simply refuse to provide more (virtual memory), leading to malloc() returning NULL.
(The Linux kernel memory subsystem is one that is actively developed, so the exact behaviour you see depends on both the kernel version, the amount of RAM and swap, and the memory manager tunables (e.g., those under /proc/sys/vm/). The above describes the most common, or typical cases and configurations.)
You don't need an external array, either. You can for example chain the allocations to a linked list:
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#ifndef SIZE
#define SIZE (2*1024*1024) /* 2 MiB */
#endif
struct list {
struct list *next;
size_t size;
char data[];
}
struct list *allocate_node(const size_t size)
{
struct list *new_node;
new_node = malloc(sizeof (struct list) + size);
if (!new_node)
return NULL;
new_node->next = NULL;
new_node->size = size;
}
int main(void)
{
size_t used = 0;
struct list *root = NULL, *curr;
/* Allocate as much memory as possible. */
while (1) {
curr = allocate_node(SIZE - sizeof (struct list));
if (!curr)
break;
/* Account for allocated total size */
used += SIZE;
/* Prepend to root list */
curr->next = root;
root = curr;
}
printf("Allocated %zu bytes.\n", used);
fflush(stdout);
/* Use all of the allocated memory. */
for (curr = root; curr != NULL; curr = curr->next)
if (curr->size > 0)
memset(curr->data, ~(unsigned char)0, curr->size);
printf("Wrote to %zu bytes of allocated memory. Done.\n", used);
fflush(stdout);
return EXIT_SUCCESS;
}
Note, the above code is untested, and even uncompiled, but the logic is sound. If you find a bug in it, or have some other issue with it, let me know in a comment so I can verify and fix.

The document you're reading is from 2003. The impossibly large number it chose to allocate was 10,000 MiB.
Today, in 2018, when new computers are likely to come with 16GiB of RAM, this kind of allocation could definitely succeed without issues.

What is the mistake I'm making with the while loop?
The segmentation fault is likely the result of passing a null pointer to memset(), since malloc() will return NULL on error.
Your second example avoids this error by always checking the return value from malloc().
I used the while loop it ... became unresponsive with swap ...
From the very document that you mentioned that you are reading:
Sometimes processes get a segfault when accessing memory that the kernel is unable to provide, sometimes they are killed, sometimes other processes are killed, sometimes the kernel hangs.
Other than mentioning the kernel version, you are very vague with the OS and system description. Presumably this is a 32-bit version?
There are actually two ways of running out of memory. Your program could exceed the amount of (virtual) memory that is allocated, or the system could actually run out of memory pages.
Note that availability of memory (pages) is a complex combination of physical memory size, swap space size, memory usage and process load.
Reference: When Linux Runs Out of Memory
by Mulyadi Santosa or here.

Related

Why should we use `realloc` if we need a `tmp buffer`

As far of my concern if realloc fails we loose the information and realloc set the Buffer(pointer) to NULL
Consider de following program:
#include<stdio.h>
#include<stdlib.h>
#include<string.h>
int main(void){
char *ptr = malloc(256);
if (!ptr){
printf("Error, malloc\n");
exit(1);
}
strcpy(ptr, "Michi");
ptr = realloc (ptr, 1024 * 102400000uL); /* I ask for a big chunk here to make realloc to fail */
if (!ptr){
printf("Houston we have a Problem\n");
}
printf("PTR = %s\n", ptr);
if (ptr){
free(ptr);
ptr = NULL;
}
}
And the output of course is:
Houston we have a Problem
PTR = (null)
I just lost the information inside ptr.
Now to fix this we should use a temporary buffer(pointer) before to see if we get that chunk of memory and if we get it we can use it, if not we still have the main buffer(pointer) safe.
Now please consider the following program, where instead of calling realloc I call malloc on a temporary buffer(pointer):
#include<stdio.h>
#include<stdlib.h>
#include<string.h>
int main(void){
char *ptr = malloc(256);
char *tmpPTR = NULL;
if (!ptr){
printf("Error, malloc\n");
exit(1);
}
strcpy(ptr, "Michi");
tmpPTR = malloc (1024 * 102400000uL);
if (tmpPTR){
strcpy(tmpPTR, ptr);
strcat(tmpPTR, " - Aloha");
if (ptr){
free(ptr);
ptr = NULL;
}
}else{
printf("Malloc failed on tmpPTR\n\n");
}
if (ptr){
printf("PTR = %s\n", ptr);
free(ptr);
ptr = NULL;
}else if (tmpPTR){
printf("tmpPTR = %s\n", tmpPTR);
free(tmpPTR);
ptr = NULL;
}
}
And the output is:
Malloc failed on tmpPTR
PTR = Michi
Now why should I ever use realloc?
Is there any benefit of using realloc instead of malloc based on this context?
Your problem is with how you use realloc. You don't have to assign the result of realloc to the same pointer that you re-allocate. And as you point out it even poses a problem if the realloc fails. If you immediately assign the result to ptr then indeed you lose the previous buffer when something goes wrong. However, if you assign the result of realloc to tmpPTR, then ptr remains fine, even if the realloc fails. Use realloc as follows:
char * ptr = malloc(256);
if(!ptr){
return 1;
}
char * tmpPTR = realloc(ptr, 512);
if(!tmpPTR){
printf("Houston, we have a problem");
// ptr is fine
}else{
ptr = tmpPTR;
}
// ptr is realloc()ed
In the above code, tmpPTR is not a new (temporary) buffer, but just a (temporary) pointer. If the realloc is succesful it points to the same buffer (but possibly in a different location), and if it fails it is NULL. realloc doesn't always need to allocate a new buffer, but may be able to change the existing one to fit the new size. But if it fails, the original buffer will not be changed.
If you use malloc with a temporary buffer, then (for this example) you need at least 256 + 512 = 768 bytes and you always need to copy the old data. realloc may be able to re-use the old buffer so copying is not necessary and you don't use more memory than requested.
You can use your malloc approach, but realloc is almost always more efficient.
The realloc scheme is simple. You do not need a separate call to malloc. For example if you initially have 256 bytes allocated for ptr, simply use a counter (or index, i below) to keep track of how much of the memory within the block allocated to ptr has been used, and when the counter reaches the limit (1 less than the max for 0-based indexes, or 2 less than the max if you are using ptr as a string), realloc.
Below shows a scheme where you are simply adding 256 additional bytes to ptr each time the allocation limit is reached:
int i = 0, max = 256;
char *ptr = malloc(max);
/* do whatever until i reaches 255 */
if (i + 1 >= max) {
void *tmp = realloc (ptr, max + 256);
if (!tmp) {
fprintf (stderr, "error: realloc - memory exhausted.\n")
/* handle error */
}
ptr = tmp;
max += 256;
}
note: your handle error can exit whatever loop you are in to preserve the existing data in ptr. You do not need to exit at that point.
The advantage of realloc over malloc is that it may be able to extend the original dynamic memory area so without the need to copy all the previous elements; you can't do that with malloc1. And whether this optimization is available costs no work to you.
Let's assume you have a previously allocated pointer:
char *some_string = malloc(size); // assume non-NULL
Then
if (realloc_needed) {
char *tmp = realloc(some_string, new_size);
if ( tmp == NULL )
// handle error
else
some_string = tmp; // (1)
At (1), you update the old pointer with the new one. Two things can happen: the address has effectively changed (and the elements been automatically copied) or it hasn't - you don't really care. Either way, your data is now at some_string.
Only the actual implementation (OS / libc) knows whether it's possible to enlarge the block: you don't get to see it, it's an implementation detail. You can however check your implementation's code and see how it's implemented.
Now to fix this we should use a temporary buffer(pointer) before to see if we get that chunk of memory and if we get it we can use it, if not we still have the main buffer(pointer) safe.
That not only doesn't help, it makes things worse because now you no longer have the pointer to the block you tried to reallocate. So how can you free it?
So it:
Wastes memory.
Require an extra allocate, copy, and free.
Makes the realloc more likely to fail because of 1.
Leaks memory since the pointer to the block you tried to reallocate is lost.
So no, that's not a good way to handle realloc returning NULL. Save the original pointer when you call realloc so you can handle failure sanely. The point of realloc to save you from having to manage two copies of the data and to avoid even making them when that's possible. So let realloc do this work for you whenever you can.
It is technically malloc(size) that is unneeded, because realloc(NULL, size) performs the exact same task.
I often read inputs of indeterminate length. As in the following function example, I rarely use malloc(), and instead use realloc() extensively:
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <errno.h>
struct record {
/* fields in each record */
};
struct table {
size_t size; /* Number of records allocated */
size_t used; /* Number of records in table */
struct record item[]; /* C99 flexible array member */
};
#define MAX_ITEMS_PER_READ 1
struct table *read_table(FILE *source)
{
struct table *result = NULL, *temp;
size_t size = 0;
size_t used = 0, n;
int err = 0;
/* Read loop */
while (1) {
if (used + MAX_ITEMS_PER_READ > size) {
/* Array size growth policy.
* Some suggest doubling the size,
* or using a constant factor.
* Here, the minimum is
* size = used + MAX_ITEMS_PER_READ;
*/
const size_t newsize = 2*MAX_ITEMS_PER_READ + used + used / 2;
temp = realloc(result, sizeof (struct table) +
newsize * sizeof (result->item[0]));
if (!temp) {
err = ENOMEM;
break;
}
result = temp;
size = newsize;
}
/* Read a record to result->item[used],
* or up to (size-used) records starting at result->item + used.
* If there are no more records, break.
* If an error occurs, set err = errno, and break.
*
* Increment used by the number of records read: */
used++;
}
if (err) {
free(result); /* NOTE: free(NULL) is safe. */
errno = err;
return NULL;
}
if (!used) {
free(result);
errno = ENODATA; /* POSIX.1 error code, not C89/C99/C11 */
return NULL;
}
/* Optional: optimize table size. */
if (used < size) {
/* We don't mind even if realloc were to fail here. */
temp = realloc(result, sizeof (struct table) +
used * sizeof table->item[0]);
if (temp) {
result = temp;
size = used;
}
}
result->size = size;
result->used = used;
errno = 0; /* Not normally zeroed; just my style. */
return result;
}
My own practical reallocation policies tend to be very conservative, limiting the size increase to a megabyte or so. There is a very practical reason for this.
On most 32-bit systems, userspace applications are limited to 2 to 4 gigabyte virtual address space. I wrote and ran simulation systems on a lot of different x86 systems (32-bit), all with 2 to 4 GB of memory. Usually, most of that memory is needed for a single dataset, which is read from disk, and manipulated in place. When the data is not in final form, it cannot be directly memory-mapped from disk, as a translation -- usually from text to binary -- is needed.
When you use realloc() to grow the dynamically allocated array to store such huge (on 32-bit) datasets, you are only limited by the available virtual address space (assuming there is enough memory available). (This especially applies to 32-bit applications on 64-bit systems.)
If, instead, you use malloc() -- i.e., when you notice your dynamically allocated array is not large enough, you malloc() a new one, copy the data over, and discard the old one --, your final data set size is limited to a lesser size, the difference depending on your exact array size growth policy. If you use the typical double when resizing policy, your final dataset is limited to about half (the available virtual address space, or available memory, whichever is smaller).
On 64-bit systems with lots and lots of memory, realloc() still matters, but is much more of a performance issue, rather than on 32-bit, where malloc() is a limiting factor. You see, when you use malloc() to allocate a completely new array, and copy the old data to the new array, the resident set size -- the actual amount of physical RAM needed by your application -- is larger; you use 50% more physical RAM to read the data than you would when using realloc(). You also do a lot of large memory-to-memory copies (when reading a huge dataset), which are limited to physical RAM bandwidth, and indeed slow down your application (although, if you are reading from a spinning disk, that is the actual bottleneck anyway, so it won't matter much).
The nastiest effect, and the most difficult to benchmark, are the indirect effects. Most operating systems use "free" RAM to cache recently accessed files not modified yet, and this really does decrease the wall clock time used by most workloads. (In particular, caching typical libraries and executables may shave off seconds from the startup time of large application suites, if the storage media is slow (ie. a spinning disk, and not a SSD).) Your memory-wasting malloc()-only approach gobbles up much more actual physical RAM than needed, which evicts cached, often useful, files from memory!
You might benchmark your program, and note that there is no real difference in run times between using your malloc()-only approach and realloc() approach I've shown above. But, if it works with large datasets, the users will notice that using the malloc()-only program slows down other programs much more than the realloc()-using program, with the same data!
So, although on 64-bit systems with lots of RAM using malloc() only is basically an inefficient way to approach things, on 32-bit systems it limits the size of dynamically allocated arrays when the final size is unknown beforehand. Only using realloc() can you there achieve the maximum possible dataset size.
Your assumption is wrong. Please do note that a pointer is not a buffer. When the function realloc() succeeds, it deallocates the old pointer(frees the original buffer) and return a new pointer to the new allocation(buffer), but when it fails, it leaves the old buffer intact and returns NULL.
So, you do not need a temporary buffer. You need a temporary pointer. I am going to borrow the example from kninnug, this is what you need to do:
char * ptr = malloc(256);
if (!ptr) {
return 1;
}
char * tmpPTR = realloc(ptr, 512);
if (!tmpPTR) {
printf("Houston, we have a problem");
// ptr is fine
}
else {
ptr = tmpPTR;
}
// ptr is realloc()ed

Why doesn't this memory eater really eat memory?

I want to create a program that will simulate an out-of-memory (OOM) situation on a Unix server. I created this super-simple memory eater:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
unsigned long long memory_to_eat = 1024 * 50000;
size_t eaten_memory = 0;
void *memory = NULL;
int eat_kilobyte()
{
memory = realloc(memory, (eaten_memory * 1024) + 1024);
if (memory == NULL)
{
// realloc failed here - we probably can't allocate more memory for whatever reason
return 1;
}
else
{
eaten_memory++;
return 0;
}
}
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
printf("I will try to eat %i kb of ram\n", memory_to_eat);
int megabyte = 0;
while (memory_to_eat > 0)
{
memory_to_eat--;
if (eat_kilobyte())
{
printf("Failed to allocate more memory! Stucked at %i kb :(\n", eaten_memory);
return 200;
}
if (megabyte++ >= 1024)
{
printf("Eaten 1 MB of ram\n");
megabyte = 0;
}
}
printf("Successfully eaten requested memory!\n");
free(memory);
return 0;
}
It eats as much memory as defined in memory_to_eat which now is exactly 50 GB of RAM. It allocates memory by 1 MB and prints exactly the point where it fails to allocate more, so that I know which maximum value it managed to eat.
The problem is that it works. Even on a system with 1 GB of physical memory.
When I check top I see that the process eats 50 GB of virtual memory and only less than 1 MB of resident memory. Is there a way to create a memory eater that really does consume it?
System specifications: Linux kernel 3.16 (Debian) most likely with overcommit enabled (not sure how to check it out) with no swap and virtualized.
When your malloc() implementation requests memory from the system kernel (via an sbrk() or mmap() system call), the kernel only makes a note that you have requested the memory and where it is to be placed within your address space. It does not actually map those pages yet.
When the process subsequently accesses memory within the new region, the hardware recognizes a segmentation fault and alerts the kernel to the condition. The kernel then looks up the page in its own data structures, and finds that you should have a zero page there, so it maps in a zero page (possibly first evicting a page from page-cache) and returns from the interrupt. Your process does not realize that any of this happened, the kernels operation is perfectly transparent (except for the short delay while the kernel does its work).
This optimization allows the system call to return very quickly, and, most importantly, it avoids any resources to be committed to your process when the mapping is made. This allows processes to reserve rather large buffers that they never need under normal circumstances, without fear of gobbling up too much memory.
So, if you want to program a memory eater, you absolutely have to actually do something with the memory you allocate. For this, you only need to add a single line to your code:
int eat_kilobyte()
{
if (memory == NULL)
memory = malloc(1024);
else
memory = realloc(memory, (eaten_memory * 1024) + 1024);
if (memory == NULL)
{
return 1;
}
else
{
//Force the kernel to map the containing memory page.
((char*)memory)[1024*eaten_memory] = 42;
eaten_memory++;
return 0;
}
}
Note that it is perfectly sufficient to write to a single byte within each page (which contains 4096 bytes on X86). That's because all memory allocation from the kernel to a process is done at memory page granularity, which is, in turn, because of the hardware that does not allow paging at smaller granularities.
All the virtual pages start out copy-on-write mapped to the same zeroed physical page. To use up physical pages, you can dirty them by writing something to each virtual page.
If running as root, you can use mlock(2) or mlockall(2) to have the kernel wire up the pages when they're allocated, without having to dirty them. (normal non-root users have a ulimit -l of only 64kiB.)
As many others suggested, it seems that the Linux kernel doesn't really allocate the memory unless you write to it
An improved version of the code, which does what the OP was wanting:
This also fixes the printf format string mismatches with the types of memory_to_eat and eaten_memory, using %zi to print size_t integers. The memory size to eat, in kiB, can optionally be specified as a command line arg.
The messy design using global variables, and growing by 1k instead of 4k pages, is unchanged.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
size_t memory_to_eat = 1024 * 50000;
size_t eaten_memory = 0;
char *memory = NULL;
void write_kilobyte(char *pointer, size_t offset)
{
int size = 0;
while (size < 1024)
{ // writing one byte per page is enough, this is overkill
pointer[offset + (size_t) size++] = 1;
}
}
int eat_kilobyte()
{
if (memory == NULL)
{
memory = malloc(1024);
} else
{
memory = realloc(memory, (eaten_memory * 1024) + 1024);
}
if (memory == NULL)
{
return 1;
}
else
{
write_kilobyte(memory, eaten_memory * 1024);
eaten_memory++;
return 0;
}
}
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
if (argc >= 2)
memory_to_eat = atoll(argv[1]);
printf("I will try to eat %zi kb of ram\n", memory_to_eat);
int megabyte = 0;
int megabytes = 0;
while (memory_to_eat-- > 0)
{
if (eat_kilobyte())
{
printf("Failed to allocate more memory at %zi kb :(\n", eaten_memory);
return 200;
}
if (megabyte++ >= 1024)
{
megabytes++;
printf("Eaten %i MB of ram\n", megabytes);
megabyte = 0;
}
}
printf("Successfully eaten requested memory!\n");
free(memory);
return 0;
}
A sensible optimisation is being made here. The runtime does not actually acquire the memory until you use it.
A simple memcpy will be sufficient to circumvent this optimisation. (You might find that calloc still optimises out the memory allocation until the point of use.)
Not sure about this one but the only explanation that I can things of is that linux is a copy-on-write operating system. When one calls fork the both processes point to the same physically memory. The memory is only copied once one process actually WRITES to the memory.
I think here, the actual physical memory is only allocated when one tries to write something to it. Calling sbrk or mmap may well only update the kernel's memory book-keep. The actual RAM may only be allocated when we actually try to access the memory.
Basic Answer
As mentioned by others, the allocation of memory, until used, does not always commit the necessary RAM. This happens if you allocate a buffer larger than one page (usually 4Kb on Linux).
One simple answer would be for your "eat memory" function to always allocate 1Kb instead of increasingly larger blocks. This is because each allocated blocks start with a header (a size for allocated blocks). So allocating a buffer of a size equal to or less than one page will always commit all of those pages.
Following Your Idea
To optimize your code as much as possible, you want to allocate blocks of memory aligned to 1 page size.
From what I can see in your code, you use 1024. I would suggest that you use:
int size;
size = getpagesize();
block_size = size - sizeof(void *) * 2;
What voodoo magic is this sizeof(void *) * 2?! When using the default memory allocation library (i.e. not SAN, fence, valgrin, ...), there is a small header just before the pointer returned by malloc() which includes a pointer to the next block and a size.
struct mem_header { void * next_block; intptr_t size; };
Now, using block_size, all your malloc() should be aligned to the page size we found earlier.
If you want to properly align everything, the first allocation needs to use an aligned allocation:
char *p = NULL;
int posix_memalign(&p, size, block_size);
Further allocations (assuming your tool only does that) can use malloc(). They will be aligned.
p = malloc(block_size);
Note: please verify that it is indeed aligned on your system... it works on mine.
As a result you can simplify your loop with:
for(;;)
{
p = malloc(block_size);
*p = 1;
}
Until you create a thread, the malloc() does not use mutexes. But it still has to look for a free memory block. In your case, though, it will be one after the other and there will be no holes in the allocated memory so it will be pretty fast.
Can it be faster?
Further note about how memory is generally allocated in a Unix system:
the malloc() function and related functions will allocate a block in your heap; which at the start is pretty small (maybe 2Mb)
when the existing heap is full it gets grown using the sbrk() function; as far as your process is concerned, the memory address always increases, that's what sbrk() does (contrary to MS-Windows which allocates blocks all over the place)
using sbrk() once and then hitting the memory every "page size" bytes would be faster than using malloc()
char * p = malloc(size); // get current "highest address"
p += size;
p = (char*)((intptr_t)p & -size); // clear bits (alignment)
int total_mem(50 * 1024 * 1024 * 1024); // 50Gb
void * start(sbrk(total_mem));
char * end((char *)start + total_mem);
for(; p < end; p += size)
{
*p = 1;
}
note that the malloc() above may give you the "wrong" start address. But your process really doesn't do much, so I think you'll always be safe. That for() loop, however, is going to be as fast as possible. As mentioned by others, you'll get the total_mem of virtual memory allocated "instantly" and then the RSS memory allocated each time you write to *p.
WARNING: Code not tested, use at your own risk.

Malloc implementation - confused

I'm trying to create my own malloc() for practice. I got the code below from this thread.
typedef struct free_block {
size_t size;
struct free_block* next;
} free_block;
static free_block free_block_list_head = { 0, 0 };
// static const size_t overhead = sizeof(size_t);
static const size_t align_to = 16;
void* malloc(size_t size) {
size = (size + sizeof(free_block) + (align_to - 1)) & ~ (align_to - 1);
free_block* block = free_block_list_head.next;
free_block** head = &(free_block_list_head.next);
while (block != 0) {
if (block->size >= size) {
*head = block->next;
return ((char*)block) + sizeof(free_block);
}
head = &(block->next);
block = block->next;
}
block = (free_block*)sbrk(size);
block->size = size;
return ((char*)block) + sizeof(free_block);
}
void free(void* ptr) {
free_block* block = (free_block*)(((char*)ptr) - sizeof(free_block ));
block->next = free_block_list_head.next;
free_block_list_head.next = block;
}
I'm confused about treating memory chunks as a linked list. It seems to me that we basicaly call sbrk() everytime we need memory and we check if some of the memory that we requested before wasn't freed in the meantime.
But we have no way of checking other memory chunks that belong to other processes, we only check the memory that we requested before and added to our linked list.
If this is the case, is this optimal? Is this how the standard malloc() works?
Is there a way for us to work with all the memory on the heap ?
Please explain like I'm 5, I'm having a hard time understanding this concept.
Extending process data segment doesn't affect other processes. On most (recent) architectures process memory model is flat, i.e. each process has a virtual address space (2^32 or 2^64 bytes). When process requests extra memory (page), a virtual memory is added to process. In fact, that doesn't mean any physical memory allocation occurs, as virtual memory can be mapped to swap file, or unmapped before use altogether (address is given to process, but no actual resources assigned to it). Kernel takes care of mapping physical address to virtual one as per need/per resource availability.
What the algorithm does?
When user calls malloc the algorithm tries to find available empty block. In the beginning, there is none, so the algorithm tries to extend the process data segment.
However, you can see, that free doesn't release virtual memory (as it is not as trivial as allocating it), instead it adds this released block to a list of unused blocks.
So, when there are prereleased blocks, malloc attempts to reuse them instead of extendind the data segment.
Do standard mallocs work as above: no. The example you've provided is simple, yet really inefficient. There are many different algorithms available for memory management: small block heaps (when allocating data up to certain amount has a O(1) performance), thread-specific allocators (reducing congestion of accessing heap from multiple threads), allocators, that pre-allocate large chunks and then use them (similar to above, yet more efficient) and other.
You can try to goodle for "memory heap implementation" for more info

Redefining free memory function in C

I'm redefining memory functions in C and I wonder if this idea could work as implementation for the free() function:
typedef struct _mem_dictionary
{
void *addr;
size_t size;
} mem_dictionary;
mem_dictionary *dictionary = NULL; //array of memory dictionaries
int dictionary_ct = 0; //dictionary struct counter
void *malloc(size_t size)
{
void *return_ptr = (void *) sbrk(size);
if (dictionary == NULL)
dictionary = (void *) sbrk(1024 * sizeof(mem_dictionary));
dictionary[dictionary_ct].addr = return_ptr;
dictionary[dictionary_ct].size = size;
dictionary_ct++;
printf("malloc(): %p assigned memory\n",return_ptr);
return return_ptr;
}
void free(void *ptr)
{
size_t i;
int flag = 0;
for(i = 0; i < dictionary_ct ; i++){
if(dictionary[i].addr == ptr){
dictionary[i].addr=NULL;
dictionary[i].size = 0;
flag = 1;
break;
}
}
if(!flag){
printf("Remember to free!\n");
}
}
Thanks in advance!
No, it will not. The address you are "freeing" is effectively lost after such a call. How would you ever know that the particular chunk of memory is again available for allocation?
There has been a lot of research in this area, here is some overview - Fast Memory Allocation in Dr. Dobbs.
Edit 0:
You are wrong about sbrk(2) - it's not a "better malloc" and you cannot use it as such. That system call modifies end of process data segment.
Few things:
Where do you allocate the memory for the dictionary?
How do you allocate the memory that dictionary->addr is pointing at? Without having the code for your malloc it is not visible if your free would work.
Unless in your malloc function you're going through each and every memory address available to the process to check if it is not used by your dictionary, merely the assignment dictionary[i].addr=NULL would not "free" the memory, and definitely not keep it for reuse.
BTW, the printf function in your version of free would print Remember to free! when the user calls free on a pointer that is supposedly not allocated, right? Then why "remember to free"?
Edit:
So with that malloc function, no, your free does not free the memory. First of all, you're losing the address of the memory, so every time you call this malloc you're actually pushing the process break a little further, and never reuse freed memory locations. One way to solve this is to somehow keep track of locations that you have "freed" so that next time that malloc is called, you can check if you have enough available memory already allocated to the process, and then reuse those locations. Also, remember that sbrk is a wrapper around brk which is an expensive system call, you should optimize your malloc so that a big chunk of memory is requested from OS using sbrk and then just keep track of which part you're using, and which part is available.

Checking if a pointer is allocated memory or not

Can we check whether a pointer passed to a function is allocated with memory or not in C?
I have wriiten my own function in C which accepts a character pointer - buf [pointer to a buffer] and size - buf_siz [buffer size]. Actually before calling this function user has to create a buffer and allocate it memory of buf_siz.
Since there is a chance that user might forget to do memory allocation and simply pass the pointer to my function I want to check this. So is there any way I can check in my function to see if the pointer passed is really allocated with buf_siz amount of memory .. ??
EDIT1: It seems there is no standard library to check it .. but is there any dirty hack to check it .. ??
EDIT2: I do know that my function will be used by a good C programmer ... But I want to know whether can we check or not .. if we can I would like to hear to it ..
Conclusion: So it is impossible to check if a particular pointer is allocated with memory or not within a function
You cannot check, except some implementation specific hacks.
Pointers have no information with them other than where they point. The best you can do is say "I know how this particular compiler version allocates memory, so I'll dereference memory, move the pointer back 4 bytes, check the size, makes sure it matches..." and so on. You cannot do it in a standard fashion, since memory allocation is implementation defined. Not to mention they might have not dynamically allocated it at all.
You just have to assume your client knows how to program in C. The only un-solution I can think of would be to allocate the memory yourself and return it, but that's hardly a small change. (It's a larger design change.)
The below code is what I have used once to check if some pointer tries to access illegal memory. The mechanism is to induce a SIGSEGV. The SEGV signal was redirected to a private function earlier, which uses longjmp to get back to the program. It is kind of a hack but it works.
The code can be improved (use 'sigaction' instead of 'signal' etc), but it is just to give an idea. Also it is portable to other Unix versions, for Windows I am not sure. Note that the SIGSEGV signal should not be used somewhere else in your program.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <setjmp.h>
#include <signal.h>
jmp_buf jump;
void segv (int sig)
{
longjmp (jump, 1);
}
int memcheck (void *x)
{
volatile char c;
int illegal = 0;
signal (SIGSEGV, segv);
if (!setjmp (jump))
c = *(char *) (x);
else
illegal = 1;
signal (SIGSEGV, SIG_DFL);
return (illegal);
}
int main (int argc, char *argv[])
{
int *i, *j;
i = malloc (1);
if (memcheck (i))
printf ("i points to illegal memory\n");
if (memcheck (j))
printf ("j points to illegal memory\n");
free (i);
return (0);
}
For a platform-specific solution, you may be interested in the Win32 function IsBadReadPtr (and others like it). This function will be able to (almost) predict whether you will get a segmentation fault when reading from a particular chunk of memory.
However, this does not protect you in the general case, because the operating system knows nothing of the C runtime heap manager, and if a caller passes in a buffer that isn't as large as you expect, then the rest of the heap block will continue to be readable from an OS perspective.
I always initialize pointers to null value. Therefore when I allocate memory it will change. When I check if memory's been allocated I do pointer != NULL. When I deallocate memory I also set pointer to null. I can't think of any way to tell if there was enough memory allocated.
This doesn't solve your problem, but you got to trust that if someone writes C programs then he is skilled enough to do it right.
I once used a dirty hack on my 64bit Solaris. In 64bit mode the heap starts at 0x1 0000 0000. By comparing the pointer I could determine if it was a pointer in the data or code segment p < (void*)0x100000000, a pointer in the heap p > (void*)0x100000000 or a pointer in a memory mapped region (intptr_t)p < 0 (mmap returns addresses from the top of the addressable area).
This allowed in my program to hold allocated and memory mapped pointers in the same map, and have my map module free the correct pointers.
But this kind of trick is highly unportable and if your code relies on something like that, it is time to rethink the architecture of your code. You're probably doing something wrong.
I know this is an old question, but almost anything is possible in C. There are a few hackish solutions here already, but a valid way of determining if memory has been properly allocated is to use an oracle to take the place of malloc, calloc, realloc, and free. This is the same way testing frameworks (such as cmocka) can detect memory problems (seg faults, not freeing memory, etc.). You can maintain a list of memory addresses allocated as they are allocated and simply check this list when the user wants to use your function. I implemented something very similar for my own testing framework. Some example code:
typedef struct memory_ref {
void *ptr;
int bytes;
memory_ref *next;
}
memory_ref *HEAD = NULL;
void *__wrap_malloc(size_t bytes) {
if(HEAD == NULL) {
HEAD = __real_malloc(sizeof(memory_ref));
}
void *tmpPtr = __real_malloc(bytes);
memory_ref *previousRef = HEAD;
memory_ref *currentRef = HEAD->next;
while(current != NULL) {
previousRef = currentRef;
currentRef = currentRef->next;
}
memory_ref *newRef = (memory_ref *)__real_malloc(sizeof(memory_ref));
*newRef = (memory_ref){
.ptr = tmpPtr,
.bytes = bytes,
.next = NULL
};
previousRef->next = newRef;
return tmpPtr;
}
You would have similar functions for calloc, realloc, and free, each wrapper prefixed with __wrap_. The real malloc is available through the use of __real_malloc (similar for the other functions you are wrapping). Whenever you want to check if memory is actually allocated, simply iterate over the linked memory_ref list and look for the memory address. If you find it and it's big enough, you know for certain the memory address won't crash your program; otherwise, return an error. In the header file your program uses, you would add these lines:
extern void *__real_malloc (size_t);
extern void *__wrap_malloc (size_t);
extern void *__real_realloc (size_t);
extern void *__wrap_realloc (size_t);
// Declare all the other functions that will be wrapped...
My needs were fairly simple so I implemented a very basic implementation, but you can imagine how this could be extended to have a better tracking system (e.g. create a struct that keeps track of the memory location in addition to the size). Then you simply compile the code with
gcc src_files -o dest_file -Wl,-wrap,malloc -Wl,-wrap,calloc -Wl,-wrap,realloc -Wl,-wrap,free
The disadvantage is the user has to compile their source code with the above directives; however, it's far from the worse I have seen. There is some overhead to allocating and freeing memory, but there is always some overhead when adding security.
No, in general there is no way to do this.
Furthermore, if your interface is just "pass a pointer to a buffer where I will put stuff", then the caller may choose not to allocate memory at all, and instead use a fixed size buffer that's statically allocated or an automatic variable or something. Or perhaps it's a pointer into a portion of a larger object on the heap.
If your interface specifically says "pass a pointer to allocated memory (because I'm going to deallocate it)", then you should expect that the caller will do so. Failure to do so isn't something you can reliably detect.
One hack you can try is checking if your pointer points to stack allocated memory.
This will not help you in general as the allocated buffer might be to small or the pointer points to some global memory section (.bss, .const, ...).
To perform this hack, you first store the address of the first variable in main(). Later, you can compare this address with the address of a local variable in your specific routine.
All addresses between both addresses are located on the stack.
Well, I don't know if somebody didn't put it here already or if it will be a possibility in your programme. I was struggling with similar thing in my university project.
I solved it quite simply - In initialization part of main() , after I declared LIST *ptr, I just put that ptr=NULL. Like this -
int main(int argc, char **argv) {
LIST *ptr;
ptr=NULL;
So when allocation fails or your pointer isn't allocated at all, it will be NULL. SO you can simply test it with if.
if (ptr==NULL) {
"THE LIST DOESN'T EXIST"
} else {
"THE LIST MUST EXIST --> SO IT HAS BEEN ALLOCATED"
}
I don't know how your programme is written, but you surely understand what am I trying to point out. If it is possible to check like this your allocation and then pass your arguments to you function, you could have a simple solution.
Of course you must be careful to have your functions with allocating and creating the structure done well but where in C you don't have to be careful.
I don't know a way of doing it from a library call, but on Linux, you can look at /proc/<pid>/numa_maps. It will show all sections of memory and the third column will say "heap" or "stack". You can look at the raw pointer value to see where it lines up.
Example:
00400000 prefer:0 file=/usr/bin/bash mapped=163 mapmax=9 N0=3 N1=160
006dc000 prefer:0 file=/usr/bin/bash anon=1 dirty=1 N0=1
006dd000 prefer:0 file=/usr/bin/bash anon=9 dirty=9 N0=3 N1=6
006e6000 prefer:0 anon=6 dirty=6 N0=2 N1=4
01167000 prefer:0 heap anon=122 dirty=122 N0=25 N1=97
7f39904d2000 prefer:0 anon=1 dirty=1 N0=1
7f39904d3000 prefer:0 file=/usr/lib64/ld-2.17.so anon=1 dirty=1 N0=1
7f39904d4000 prefer:0 file=/usr/lib64/ld-2.17.so anon=1 dirty=1 N1=1
7f39904d5000 prefer:0 anon=1 dirty=1 N0=1
7fffc2d6a000 prefer:0 stack anon=6 dirty=6 N0=3 N1=3
7fffc2dfe000 prefer:0
So pointers that are above 0x01167000 but below 0x7f39904d2000 are located in the heap.
You can't check with anything available in standard C. Even if your specific compiler were to provide a function to do so, it would still be a bad idea. Here's an example of why:
int YourFunc(char * buf, int buf_size);
char str[COUNT];
result = YourFunc(str, COUNT);
As everyone else said, there isn't a standard way to do it.
So far, no-one else has mentioned 'Writing Solid Code' by Steve Maguire. Although castigated in some quarters, the book has chapters on the subject of memory management, and discusses how, with care and complete control over all memory allocation in the program, you can do as you ask and determine whether a pointer you are given is a valid pointer to dynamically allocated memory. However, if you plan to use third party libraries, you will find that few of them allow you to change the memory allocation routines to your own, which greatly complicates such analysis.
in general lib users are responsible for input check and verification. You may see ASSERT or something in the lib code and they are used only for debug perpose. it is a standard way when writing C/C++. while so many coders like to do such check and verfying in their lib code very carefully. really "BAD" habits. As stated in IOP/IOD, lib interfaces should be the contracts and make clear what will the lib do and what will not, and what a lib user should do and what should be not necessary.
There is a simple way to do this. Whenever you create a pointer, write a wrapper around it. For example, if your programmer uses your library to create a structure.
struct struct_type struct_var;
make sure he allocates memory using your function such as
struct struct_type struct_var = init_struct_type()
if this struct_var contains memory that is dynamically allocated, for ex,
if the definition of struct_type was
typedef struct struct_type {
char *string;
}struct_type;
then in your init_struct_type() function, do this,
init_struct_type()
{
struct struct_type *temp = (struct struct_type*)malloc(sizeof(struct_type));
temp->string = NULL;
return temp;
}
This way,unless he allocates the temp->string to a value, it will remain NULL. You can check in the functions that use this structure, if the string is NULL or not.
One more thing, if the programmer is so bad, that he fails to use your functions, but rather directly accesses unallocated the memory, he doesn't deserve to use your library. Just ensure that your documentation specifies everything.
No, you can't. You'll notice that no functions in the standard library or anywhere else do this. That's because there's no standard way to tell. The calling code just has to accept responsibility for correctly managing the memory.
An uninitialised pointer is exactly that - uninitialised. It may point to anything or simply be an invalid address (i.e. one not mapped to physical or virtual memory).
A practical solution is to have a validity signature in the objects pointed to. Create a malloc() wrapper that allocates the requested block size plus the sizeof a signature structure, creates a signature structure at the start of the block but returns the pointer to the location after the signature. You can then create a validation function that takes the pointer, uses a negative offset to get the validity structure and checks it. You will of course need a corresponding free() wrapper to invalidate the block by overwriting the validity signature, and to perform the free from the true start of the allocated block.
As a validity structure, you might use the size of the block and its one's complement. That way you not only have a way of validating the block (XOR the two values and compare to zero), but you also have information about the block size.
A pointer tracker, tracks and checks the validity of a pointer
usage:
create memory int * ptr = malloc(sizeof(int) * 10);
add the pointer address to the tracker Ptr(&ptr);
check for failing pointers PtrCheck();
and free all trackers at the end of your code
PtrFree();
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdint.h>
#include <stdbool.h>
struct my_ptr_t { void ** ptr; size_t mem; struct my_ptr_t *next, *previous; };
static struct my_ptr_t * ptr = NULL;
void Ptr(void * p){
struct my_ptr_t * tmp = (struct my_ptr_t*) malloc(sizeof(struct my_ptr_t));
printf("\t\tcreating Ptr tracker:");
if(ptr){ ptr->next = tmp; }
tmp->previous = ptr;
ptr = tmp;
ptr->ptr = p;
ptr->mem = **(size_t**) ptr->ptr;
ptr->next = NULL;
printf("%I64x\n", ptr);
};
void PtrFree(void){
if(!ptr){ return; }
/* if ptr->previous == NULL */
if(!ptr->previous){
if(*ptr->ptr){
free(ptr->ptr);
ptr->ptr = NULL;
}
free(ptr);
ptr = NULL;
return;
}
struct my_ptr_t * tmp = ptr;
for(;tmp != NULL; tmp = tmp->previous ){
if(*tmp->ptr){
if(**(size_t**)tmp->ptr == tmp->mem){
free(*tmp->ptr);
*tmp->ptr = NULL;
}
}
free(tmp);
}
return;
};
void PtrCheck(void){
if(!ptr){ return; }
if(!ptr->previous){
if(*(size_t*)ptr->ptr){
if(*ptr->ptr){
if(**(size_t**) ptr->ptr != ptr->mem){
printf("\tpointer %I64x points not to a valid memory address", ptr->mem);
printf(" did you freed the memory and not NULL'ed the pointer or used arthmetric's on pointer %I64x?\n", *ptr->ptr);
return;
}
}
return;
}
return;
}
struct my_ptr_t * tmp = ptr;
for(;tmp->previous != NULL; tmp = tmp->previous){
if(*(size_t*)tmp->ptr){
if(*tmp->ptr){
if(**(size_t**) tmp->ptr != tmp->mem){
printf("\tpointer %I64x points not to a valid memory address", tmp->mem);
printf(" did you freed the memory and not NULL'ed the pointer or used arthmetric's on pointer %I64x?\n", *tmp->ptr); continue;
}
}
continue;
}
}
return;
};
int main(void){
printf("\n\n\t *************** Test ******************** \n\n");
size_t i = 0;
printf("\t *************** create tracker ********************\n");
int * ptr = malloc(sizeof(int) * 10);
Ptr(&ptr);
printf("\t *************** check tracker ********************\n");
PtrCheck();
printf("\t *************** free pointer ********************\n");
free(ptr);
printf("\t *************** check tracker ********************\n");
PtrCheck();
printf("\t *************** set pointer NULL *******************\n");
ptr = NULL;
printf("\t *************** check tracker ********************\n");
PtrCheck();
printf("\t *************** free tracker ********************\n");
PtrFree();
printf("\n\n\t *************** single check done *********** \n\n");
printf("\n\n\t *************** start multiple test *********** \n");
int * ptrs[10];
printf("\t *************** create trackers ********************\n");
for(; i < 10; i++){
ptrs[i] = malloc(sizeof(int) * 10 * i);
Ptr(&ptrs[i]);
}
printf("\t *************** check trackers ********************\n");
PtrCheck();
printf("\t *************** free pointers but set not NULL *****\n");
for(i--; i > 0; i-- ){ free(ptrs[i]); }
printf("\t *************** check trackers ********************\n");
PtrCheck();
printf("\t *************** set pointers NULL *****************\n");
for(i=0; i < 10; i++){ ptrs[i] = NULL; }
printf("\t *************** check trackers ********************\n");
PtrCheck();
printf("\t *************** free trackers ********************\n");
PtrFree();
printf("\tdone");
return 0;
}
I'm not sure how fast msync is, but this is a linux only solution:
// Returns 1 if the ponter is mapped
int pointer_valid (void *p)
{
size_t pg_size = sysconf (_SC_PAGESIZE);
void *pg_start = (void *) ((((size_t)p) / pg_size) * pg_size);
return msync (pg_start, pg_size, MS_ASYNC) == 0;
}
There is almost never "never" in computers. Cross platform is way over anticipated. After 25 years I have worked on hundreds of projects all anticipating cross platform and it never materialized.
Obviously, a variable on the stack, would point to an area on the stack, which is almost linear. Cross platform garbage collectors work, by marking the top or (bottom) of the stack, calling a little function to check if the stack grows upwards or downwards and then checking the stack pointer to know how big the stack is. This is your range. I don't know a machine that doesn't implement a stack this way (either growing up or down.)
You simply check if the address of our object or pointer sits between the top and bottom of the stack. This is how you would know if it is a stack variable.
Too simple. Hey, is it correct c++? No. Is correct important? In 25 years I have seen way more estimation of correct. Well, let's put it this way: If you are hacking, you aren't doing real programming, you are probably just regurigating something that's already been done.
How interesting is that?

Resources