Assume the following situation:
typedef struct {
int ID1;
int ID2;
char string[256];
} Reg;
I create an array dynamically, this structure:
Reg *myReg = (Reg*) malloc(sizeof(Reg)*100); //array of type Reg with 100 positions.
And throughout this example system, I fill this array.
There comes a certain point I do not want the pointer "myReg" point to this vector. I want him to point to NULL. And also to clear the memory space occupied by malloc I did.
question:
If I do:
free(myReg);
This will make myReg will point to NULL and release the space taken up that I've allocated?
free(myReg);
This will make myReg will point to NULL and release the space taken up
that I've allocated?
It will only release the memory. Even without reading the specs, if you look at how the free function is declared, you'll see it can't actually change what the pointer is pointing to.
/* Even if it wanted, `free` can't make `ptr` point to anything else. */
void free(void *ptr);
A call to free only free's the memory allocated and returns it to the heap. It will not set the your myReg to NULL. You must do it yourself.
One way is to write a macro as below:
#define MY_FREE(ptr) free(ptr); ptr = NULL;
Other answers are correct.
To help understanding why it must be so, consider that there may be multiple pointers pointing to this memory, or to different parts of it:
Reg *myReg = (Reg*) malloc(sizeof(Reg)*100);
Reg *myReg2 = myReg;
Reg *myReg3 = &myReg[50];
When you free myReg, all these pointers are unchanged. They point to the same piece of memory as before, but this memory must no longer be used.
You, the programmer, should set them to NULL (or just avoid using them after free).
C can't find them all and set them to NULL. More modern languages, such as Java, know how to track all the pointers to a given object, but C does nothing like this.
Related
Is there a possible way to make static array of structs points to NULL since I can't delete arrays and I want to clean the memory?
Suppose we have the following code:
struct_x defaultStructX[6];
struct_x requiredStructX [6];
gettingDefaultX(defaultStructX, 6);
for (uint8_t i = 0; i <6; i++)
{
setStructX(requiredStructX[i].index, requiredStructX[i].icirate, requiredStructX[i].icis, requiredStructX[i].iei);
//error handle case
if (status == STATUS_SUCCESS)
{
writeResponse.writeStatus = status_ok; /*This is another struct not important at this point*/
} else
{
errorHandleQciFlowMeter(defaultStructX, 6);
writeResponse.writeStatus = status_nok;
break;
}
}
/*here I want to write code line to clean the defaultStructX from memory. Is it possible? I have tried *defaultStructX[i]= NULL and ##((void*)defaultQciFlowMeter) = NULL; ## and many other methods but it didn't work*/
Is there a possible way to make static array of stucts points to NULL since I can't delete arrays and I want to clean the memory?
No. Arrays are not pointers, nor are the elements of your particular arrays pointers, either. Pointer values cannot be assigned to either the arrays themselves or to the elements, and in particular, NULL cannot be assigned to them.
You can overwrite the memory occupied by the array with, say,
memset(defaultStructX, 0, sizeof(defaultStructX));
That will replace the data previously stored within,* which might be useful if those data were sensitive. The application would then need to assign new, valid values to the array elements before using them again.
Any way around, however, you cannot free the memory of an object with static storage duration, which is any object declared at file scope, outside all functions, or with the static qualifier inside a function. The entire point of static storage duration is for objects' lifetimes to be the entire duration of the program's run. If you want to be able to release the memory then you should allocate space for your arrays dynamically, or, if it works for your particular application, automatically (as a local variable of a well-chosen function).
* In principle. As #chux noted in comments, it may be the case that the compiler chooses to optimize out such an overwrite, which it might do if it could determine that the zeroed out data were never read. If this is a concern, then the best mitigation would probably be to declare the arrays volatile.
struct_x defaultStructX[6];
struct_x requiredStructX [6];
With the above statements, you have reserved memory for the two arrays of structs. This memory will remain allocated to you during the entire lifetime of your program and cannot be de-allocated until your program exits.
However, what you want to store in this memory is completely under your control. What is your definition of 'cleaning from memory'?
Do you haves some sensitive data that you want to erase from memory? You can always memset them to zero (or any other value) with:
memset(defaultStructX, 0x00, sizeof(defaultStructX));
Do you want to physically de-allocate the memory? If you want to have control over allocation and deallocation of chunks of memory, you should do so with malloc and free.
EDIT: Apparently the memset() solution can be derailed by compiler optimizations.
Here is a useful description of this issue from the SEI CERT C page.
You cannot manually deallocate anything that wasn’t allocated with malloc, calloc, or realloc. If you declared your arrays at file scope (outside of any function) or with the static keyword, then their memory won’t be released until the program terminates. Otherwise, their memory will be released when the function in which they were declared exits.
You can overwrite elements not currently in use with zeros or some other “not a value” value, but you cannot free the memory they occupy.
Arrays are not pointers. Expressions of array type are converted to pointers as necessary, but the array object itself is not a pointer.
Is there a possible way to make static array of structs points to NULL since I can't delete arrays and I want to clean the memory?
No. Arrays do not point. The array could be cleared.
I want to write code line to clean the defaultStructX from memory.
Simply assigned zeros to it.
memset() can get optimized out if the compiler sees the data was not subsequently read.
Alternative: use a loop with a pointer to volatile data to avoid loop from being optimized out.
volatile unsigned char *vp = defaultStructX;
for (size_t i = 0; i<sizeof defaultStructX; i++ {
vp[i] = 0;
}
Hmm... On one hand I love the detailed answer offered by John Bollinger and I believe he gave the correct answer for your use case... however...
There is a way to make the statically allocated array appear to point to NULL.
Obviously you can't assign NULL to an array. However, you can make a statically allocated "Array" seem to point to NULL by hiding it behind a pointer.
It might look like this:
#define STRUCT_X_ARRAY_LENGTH 6
struct_x defaultStructX___[STRUCT_X_ARRAY_LENGTH];
struct_x requiredStructX___[STRUCT_X_ARRAY_LENGTH];
struct_x * defaultStructX = defaultStructX___;
struct_x * requiredStructX = requiredStructX___;
gettingDefaultX(defaultStructX, STRUCT_X_ARRAY_LENGTH);
Now you could set the (no longer) "Array" to NULL using:
defaultStructX = NULL;
requiredStructX = NULL;
You could also reset the state (zero out the memory and reassign the correct memory address) using:
defaultStructX = defaultStructX___;
requiredStructX = requiredStructX___;
memset(defaultStructX___, 0 , sizeof(defaultStructX___));
memset(defaultStructX___, 0 , sizeof(requiredStructX___));
Not that this fits your use case, but it's a good enough technique that others might want to know about it.
It's known that you cannot in any standard way retrieve the allocated size of a memory block. For instance, if you do:
void *ptr = malloc(100);
There is no way to find out that it was 100 bytes allocated. But I started wondering if there is any way to do a similar thing, and that is retrieving the original pointer from a pointer pointing in that block. Like
void *ptr = malloc(100);
void *ptr2 = &ptr[10];
Can I in any way get ptr from ptr2 without knowing that it points at element 10?
I have not found a good use case for it, but something that is at least reasonable (and a little crazy) is if you want a function to allocate a string and return a pointer to the first digit in that string. I'm mostly just curious if it is possible.
Is it possible to retrieve the start address from a pointer to allocated memory
No. The details of allocation are an implementation detail, not specified by C. No portable way to find the size nor start from an arbitrary offsetted pointer alone.
I created a struct like the following:
typedef struct header{
int hc;
char src[18];
char dst=[18];
char reason[15];
char d[3];
char m[3];
char y[4];
struct measurements{
char h_ip[17];
int h_ttl;
int h_id;
float h_rtt;
}HOPS[100];
}HEADER;
INSIDE MAIN:
HEADER *head;
for(...){
head=(HEADER*) malloc(sizeof(HEADER));
.....
free(head);
}
Will the above malloc automatically allocate memory for the inner struct as well? Also, I'm facing a weird problem here. After I free the header, I'm still able to print the values of head->HOPS[i].h_ip. Should I explicitly free the inner struct as well so that even the values get cleared?
Yes, it allocates memory for the inner structure. And you need not free the inner structure separately.
If you have a pointer defined inside your structure, in that case you have to allocate separately for that pointer member of the structure and free that separately.
Consider freeing memory as a black box. All what you know is that after freeing you shouldn't refer to freed memory.
You may find that that memory block still exists and still contains some old values. That's ok: it just was marked as freed and probably it will be used again soon by allocator.
For example when you call malloc again and realized that just allocated block contains values from the old structure. It happens and that's alright. Just use this block as usually.
So, after the problem with the wrong declaration of head was resolved:
free returns a previously allocated memory block to the heap. It does not clear anything (for performance reasons). However, you are not supposed to access that block anymore afterwards. Doing so results in undefined behaviour and might let your computer fly out of the window.
Worst that can happen is ... nothing ... Yes, you might even not notice anything strang happens. However, that does not mean your program run correctly, it just does not show any symptoms.
To catch illegal accesses, you might set the pointer to NULL once you freed the object it points to. Some operating systems catch accesses to addresses near the null pointer address, but there is no guarantee. It is a good practice anyway and does no harm.
For your other question: malloc allocates a block of memory large enough to store that many bytes you passed as argument. If it cannot, it will return a null pointer. You should always check if malloc & friends returned a valid pointer (i.e. not a null pointer).
int *p = malloc(sizeof(int));
if ( p == NULL ) {
error: out of memory
}
...
Notice the omission of the cast of the result of malloc. In C you should not cast void * as returned by malloc & friends (but also elsewhere). As much as you did not for free(head). Both take the same type: void *, btw. (so why cast one and not the other?). Note that in C any object pointer can freely be assigned to/from void * without cast. Warning functions are no objects in the C standard!
Finally: sizeof(HEADER) returns the size of the struct. Of course that include all fields. A nested struct is a field. A pointer to another struct is a field. For the latter, however note: the pointer itself is a field, but not what it points to! If that was another struct, you have to malloc that seperately **and also free seperately (remember what I wrote above).
But as you do not have pointer inside your struct, that is not your problem here. (keep it in mind, if you continue programming, you will eventually need that!)
I've read and understand the concepts behind the binary buddies approach to memory allocation, and I'm trying to put it to work in C but I have a few implementation specific questions before I can really get started.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxJX9LHXUU59OWZ6ZmhvV1lBX2M/view?usp=sharing
- This is a link to the assignment specification, my question pertains to problem 5.
The problem specifies that one call to malloc is to be made at the initialization of the allocator, and all requests for memory must be serviced using the space acquired from this call.
It's clear that the initial pointer to this space must be incremented in some way when a call to get_memory() is made, and the new pointer will be returned to the calling process. How can I increment the pointer by a specific number of bytes?
I understand that free lists for each block size must be kept, but I'm unsure exactly how these will be initialized and maintained. What is stored in the free list exactly? The memory pointer?
I apologize if these questions have been asked before, I haven't found a relevant question that provided enough clarity for me to get working.
For your first question, you just have to increment your pointer like a normal variable.
The value of a pointer corresponds to the address in memory of the data it points to. By incrementing it by, say 10, you actually move 10 bytes further into your memory.
As for the free list, malloc() creates a structure contingent with the allocated memory block containing informations such as the address of the memory block,its size, and whether it is free or not.
You goal is to create these structures so you can keep track of the status the different memory blocks you have allocated or free with your get_memory() and release_memory() function.
You might also find this useful : https://stackoverflow.com/a/1957125/4758798
It's clear that the initial pointer to this space must be incremented in some way when a call to get_memory() is made, and the new pointer will be returned to the calling process. How can I increment the pointer by a specific number of bytes?
When you call get_memory(), you will return a pointer to the main memory added to some offset. The word 'increment' implies that you are going to change the value of the initial pointer, which you should not do.
Here is some simple code of me subaddressing one big memory block.
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdio.h>
int main (void)
{
// Allocate a block of memory
void * memory_block = malloc (512);
// Now "Split" that memory into two halves.
void * first_half = memory_block;
void * second_half = memory_block + 256;
// We can even keep splitting...
void * second_first_half = second_half;
void * second_second_half = second_half + 128;
// Note that this splitting doesn't actually change the main memory block.
// We're just bookmarking locations in it.
printf ("memory_block %p\n", memory_block);
printf ("first_half %p\n", first_half);
printf ("second_half %p\n", second_half);
printf ("second_first_half %p\n", second_first_half);
printf ("second_second_half %p\n", second_second_half);
return 0;
}
I understand that free lists for each block size must be kept, but I'm unsure exactly how these will be initialized and maintained. What is stored in the free list exactly? The memory pointer?
At a minimum, you probably want to keep track of the memory pointer and the size of that memory block, so something like this...
typedef struct memory_block {
void * memory;
size_t size;
} memory_block_t;
There are other ways to represent this though. For example, you get equivalent information by keeping track of their memory offsets relative to the global malloc. I would suggest treating memory as a set of offsets like this:
void * global_memory; // Assigned by start_memory()
// Functionally equivalent to the above struct
// memory = global_memory + begin;
// size = end - begin;
typedef struct memory_block {
size_t begin;
size_t end;
} memory_block_t;
There are multiple approaches to this difficult problem.
Maybe a bad topic, but given the following code, do i need to free(player->name) too?
#include <stdio.h>
struct Player
{
char *name;
int level;
};
int main()
{
struct Player *player;
player->name = malloc(sizeof(player->name)*256);
player->name = "John";
printf(player->name);
free(player);
printf("\n\n\n");
system("PAUSE");
return 0;
}
Oh boy, where to start? You really need a good book. Sigh. Let's start at the top of main():
This
struct Player *player;
defines a pointer to a struct Player, but it doesn't initialize it. It has thus a more or less random value, pointing somewhere into memory. This
player->name = malloc(sizeof(player->name)*256);
now writes into parts of that random location the address of a piece of memory obtained by malloc(). Writing to memory through an uninitialized pointer invokes Undefined Behavior. After that, all bets are off. No need to look further down your program. You are unlucky that, by accident, you write to a piece of memory that is owned by your process, so it doesn't crash immediately, making you aware of the problem.
There's two ways for you to improve that. Either stick to the pointer and have it point to a piece of memory allocated for a Player object. You could obtain it by calling malloc(sizeof(Player).
Or just use a local, automatic (aka stack-based) object:
struct Player player;
The compiler will generate the code to allocate memory on the stack for it and will release it automatically. This is the easiest, and should certainly be your default.
However, your code has more problems than that.
This
player->name = malloc(sizeof(player->name)*256);
allocates consecutive memory on the heap to store 256 pointers to characters, and assigns the address of the first pointer (the address of a char*, thus a char**) to player->name (a char*). Frankly, I'm surprised that even compiles, but then I'm more used to C++' stricter type enforcement. Anyway, what you probably want instead instead is to allocate memory for 256 characters:
player->name = malloc(sizeof(char)*256);
(Since sizeof(char) is, by definition, 1, you will often see this as malloc(256).)
However, there more to this: Why 256? What if I pass a string 1000 chars long? No, simply allocating space for a longer string is not the way to deal with this, because I could pass it a string longer still. So either 1) fix the maximum string length (just declare Player::name to be a char array of that length, instead of a char*) and enforce this limit in your code, or 2) find out the length needed dynamically, at run-time, and allocate exactly the memory needed (string length plus 1, for the terminating '\0' char).
But it gets worse. This
player->name = "John";
then assigns the address of a string literal to player->name, overriding the address of the memory allocated by malloc() in the only variable you store it in, making you lose and leak the memory.
But strings are no first-class citizens in C, so you cannot assign them. They are arrays of characters, by convention terminated with a '\0'. To copy them, you have to copy them character by character, either in a loop or, preferably, by calling strcpy().
To add insult to injury, you later attempt to free the memory a string literal lives in
free(player);
thereby very likely seriously scrambling the heap manager's data structures. Again, you seem to be unlucky for that to not causing an immediate crash, but the code seemingly working as intended is one of the worst possibilities of Undefined Behavior to manifest itself. If it weren't for all bets being off before, they now thoroughly would be.
I'm sorry if this sounds condemning, it really wasn't meant that way, but you certainly and seriously fucked up this one. To wrap this up:
You need a good C++ book. Right now. Here is a list of good books assembled by C programmers on Stack Overflow. (I'm a C++ programmer by heart, so I won't comment on their judgment, but K&R is certainly a good choice.)
You should initialize all pointers immediately, either with the address of an existing valid object, or with the address of a piece of memory allocated to hold an object of the right type, or with NULL (which you can easily check for later). In particular, you must not attempt to read from or write to a piece of memory that has not been allocated (dynamically on the heap or automatically on the stack) to you.
You need to free() all memory that was obtained by calling malloc() exactly once.
You must not attempt to free() any other memory.
I'm sure there is more to that code, but I'll stop here. And did I mention you need a good C book? Because you do.
You have to free() everything that you malloc() and you must malloc() everything that is not allocated at compile time.
So:
You must malloc player and you must free player->name
Ok, so your variable player is a pointer, which you have not initialized, and therefore points to a random memory location.
You first need to allocate the memory for player the way you have done for player->name, and then alocate for player->name.
Any memory allocated with malloc() needs to be freed with free().
Take a look at this and this.
This is awful code. Why? Firstly you allocate memory for player->name. malloc returns pointer to allocated memory. In next step you lose this pointer value because reassign player->name to point to static "John" string. Maybe you want to use strdup or sprintf functions?
Also the big mistake is to use uninitialized pointer to player struct. Try to imagine that it can point to random memory location. So it is good idea allocate memory for your structure with help of malloc. Or don't use pointer to structure and use real structure variable.
player doesn't need to be freed because it was never malloc'd, it's simply a local stack variable. player->name does need to be freed since it was allocated dynamically.
int main()
{
// Declares local variable which is a pointer to a Player struct
// but doesn't actually point to a Player because it wasn't initialised
struct Player *player;
// Allocates space for name (in an odd way...)
player->name = malloc(sizeof(player->name)*256);
// At this point, player->name is a pointer to a dynamically allocated array of size 256*4
// Replaces the name field of player with a string literal
player->name = "John";
// At this point, the pointer returned by malloc is essentially lost...
printf(player->name);
// ?!?!
free(player);
printf("\n\n\n");
system("PAUSE");
return 0;
}
I guess you wanted to do something like this:
int main() {
struct Player player;
player.name = malloc( 256 );
// Populate the allocated memory somehow...
printf("%s", player.name);
free(player.name);
}