Maybe it is different from platform to platform, but
when I compile using gcc and run the code below, I get 0 every time in my ubuntu 11.10.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
int main()
{
double *a = malloc(sizeof(double)*100)
printf("%f", *a);
}
Why do malloc behave like this even though there is calloc?
Doesn't it mean that there is an unwanted performance overhead just to initialize the values to 0 even if you don't want it to be sometimes?
EDIT: Oh, my previous example was not initiazling, but happened to use "fresh" block.
What I precisely was looking for was why it initializes it when it allocates a large block:
int main()
{
int *a = malloc(sizeof(int)*200000);
a[10] = 3;
printf("%d", *(a+10));
free(a);
a = malloc(sizeof(double)*200000);
printf("%d", *(a+10));
}
OUTPUT: 3
0 (initialized)
But thanks for pointing out that there is a SECURITY reason when mallocing! (Never thought about it). Sure it has to initialize to zero when allocating fresh block, or the large block.
Short Answer:
It doesn't, it just happens to be zero in your case.(Also your test case doesn't show that the data is zero. It only shows if one element is zero.)
Long Answer:
When you call malloc(), one of two things will happen:
It recycles memory that was previous allocated and freed from the same process.
It requests new page(s) from the operating system.
In the first case, the memory will contain data leftover from previous allocations. So it won't be zero. This is the usual case when performing small allocations.
In the second case, the memory will be from the OS. This happens when the program runs out of memory - or when you are requesting a very large allocation. (as is the case in your example)
Here's the catch: Memory coming from the OS will be zeroed for security reasons.*
When the OS gives you memory, it could have been freed from a different process. So that memory could contain sensitive information such as a password. So to prevent you reading such data, the OS will zero it before it gives it to you.
*I note that the C standard says nothing about this. This is strictly an OS behavior. So this zeroing may or may not be present on systems where security is not a concern.
To give more of a performance background to this:
As #R. mentions in the comments, this zeroing is why you should always use calloc() instead of malloc() + memset(). calloc() can take advantage of this fact to avoid a separate memset().
On the other hand, this zeroing is sometimes a performance bottleneck. In some numerical applications (such as the out-of-place FFT), you need to allocate a huge chunk of scratch memory. Use it to perform whatever algorithm, then free it.
In these cases, the zeroing is unnecessary and amounts to pure overhead.
The most extreme example I've seen is a 20-second zeroing overhead for a 70-second operation with a 48 GB scratch buffer. (Roughly 30% overhead.)
(Granted: the machine did have a lack of memory bandwidth.)
The obvious solution is to simply reuse the memory manually. But that often requires breaking through established interfaces. (especially if it's part of a library routine)
The OS will usually clear fresh memory pages it sends to your process so it can't look at an older process' data. This means that the first time you initialize a variable (or malloc something) it will often be zero but if you ever reuse that memory (by freeing it and malloc-ing again, for instance) then all bets are off.
This inconsistence is precisely why uninitialized variables are such a hard to find bug.
As for the unwanted performance overheads, avoiding unspecified behaviour is probably more important. Whatever small performance boost you could gain in this case won't compensate the hard to find bugs you will have to deal with if someone slightly modifies the codes (breaking previous assumptions) or ports it to another system (where the assumptions might have been invalid in the first place).
Why do you assume that malloc() initializes to zero? It just so happens to be that the first call to malloc() results in a call to sbrk or mmap system calls, which allocate a page of memory from the OS. The OS is obliged to provide zero-initialized memory for security reasons (otherwise, data from other processes gets visible!). So you might think there - the OS wastes time zeroing the page. But no! In Linux, there is a special system-wide singleton page called the 'zero page' and that page will get mapped as Copy-On-Write, which means that only when you actually write on that page, the OS will allocate another page and initialize it. So I hope this answers your question regarding performance. The memory paging model allows usage of memory to be sort-of lazy by supporting the capability of multiple mapping of the same page plus the ability to handle the case when the first write occurs.
If you call free(), the glibc allocator will return the region to its free lists, and when malloc() is called again, you might get that same region, but dirty with the previous data. Eventually, free() might return the memory to the OS by calling system calls again.
Notice that the glibc man page on malloc() strictly says that the memory is not cleared, so by the "contract" on the API, you cannot assume that it does get cleared. Here's the original excerpt:
malloc() allocates size bytes and returns a pointer to the allocated memory.
The memory is not cleared. If size is 0, then malloc() returns either NULL,
or a unique pointer value that can later be successfully passed to free().
If you would like, you can read more about of that documentation if you are worried about performance or other side-effects.
I modified your example to contain 2 identical allocations. Now it is easy to see malloc doesn't zero initialize memory.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
int main(void)
{
{
double *a = malloc(sizeof(double)*100);
*a = 100;
printf("%f\n", *a);
free(a);
}
{
double *a = malloc(sizeof(double)*100);
printf("%f\n", *a);
free(a);
}
return 0;
}
Output with gcc 4.3.4
100.000000
100.000000
From gnu.org:
Very large blocks (much larger than a page) are allocated with mmap (anonymous or via /dev/zero) by this implementation.
The standard does not dictate that malloc() should initialize the values to zero. It just happens at your platform that it might be set to zero, or it might have been zero at the specific moment you read that value.
Your code doesn't demonstrate that malloc initialises its memory to 0. That could be done by the operating system, before the program starts. To see shich is the case, write a different value to the memory, free it, and call malloc again. You will probably get the same address, but you will have to check this. If so, you can look to see what it contains. Let us know!
malloc doesn't initialize memory to zero. It returns it to you as it is without touching the memory or changing its value.
So, why do we get those zeros?
Before answering this question we should understand how malloc works:
When you call malloc it checks whether the glibc allocator has a memory of the requested size or not.
If it does, it will return this memory to you. This memory usually comes due to a previous free operation so it has garbage value(maybe zero or not) in most cases.
On the other hand, if it can't find memory, it will ask the OS to allocate memory for it, by calling sbrk or mmap system calls.
The OS returns a zero-initialized page for security reasons as this memory may have been used by another process and carries valuable information such as passwords or personal data.
You can read about it yourself from this Link:
Neighboring chunks can be coalesced on a free no matter what their
size is. This makes the implementation suitable for all kinds of
allocation patterns without generally incurring high memory waste
through fragmentation.
Very large blocks (much larger than a page) are allocated with mmap
(anonymous or via /dev/zero) by this implementation
In some implementations calloc uses this property of the OS and asks the OS to allocate pages for it to make sure the memory is always zero-initialized without initializing it itself.
Do you know that it is definitely being initialised? Is it possible that the area returned by malloc() just frequently has 0 at the beginning?
Never ever count on any compiler to generate code that will initialize memory to anything. malloc simply returns a pointer to n bytes of memory someplace hell it might even be in swap.
If the contents of the memory is critical initialize it yourself.
Related
char *cp = (char *) malloc(1);
strcpy(cp, "123456789");
puts(cp);
output is "123456789" on both gcc (Linux) and Visual C++ Express, does that mean when there is free memory, I can actually use more than what I've allocated with malloc()?
and why malloc(0) doesn't cause runtime error?
Thanks.
You've asked a very good question and maybe this will whet your appetite about operating systems. Already you know you've managed to achieve something with this code that you wouldn't ordinarily expect to do. So you would never do this in code you want to make portable.
To be more specific, and this depends entirely on your operating system and CPU architecture, the operating system allocates "pages" of memory to your program - typically this can be in the order of 4 kilobytes. The operating system is the guardian of pages and will immediately terminate any program that attempts to access a page it has not been assigned.
malloc, on the other hand, is not an operating system function but a C library call. It can be implemented in many ways. It is likely that your call to malloc resulted in a page request from the operating system. Then malloc would have decided to give you a pointer to a single byte inside that page. When you wrote to the memory from the location you were given you were just writing in a "page" that the operating system had granted your program, and thus the operating system will not see any wrong doing.
The real problems, of course, will begin when you continue to call malloc to assign more memory. It will eventually return pointers to the locations you just wrote over. This is called a "buffer overflow" when you write to memory locations that are legal (from an operating system perspective) but could potentially be overwriting memory another part of the program will also be using.
If you continue to learn about this subject you'll begin to understand how programs can be exploited using such "buffer overflow" techniques - even to the point where you begin to write assembly language instructions directly into areas of memory that will be executed by another part of your program.
When you get to this stage you'll have gained much wisdom. But please be ethical and do not use it to wreak havoc in the universe!
PS when I say "operating system" above I really mean "operating system in conjunction with privileged CPU access". The CPU and MMU (memory management unit) triggers particular interrupts or callbacks into the operating system if a process attempts to use a page that has not been allocated to that process. The operating system then cleanly shuts down your application and allows the system to continue functioning. In the old days, before memory management units and privileged CPU instructions, you could practically write anywhere in memory at any time - and then your system would be totally at the mercy of the consequences of that memory write!
No. You get undefined behavior. That means anything can happen, from it crashing (yay) to it "working" (boo), to it reformatting your hard drive and filling it with text files that say "UB, UB, UB..." (wat).
There's no point in wondering what happens after that, because it depends on your compiler, platform, environment, time of day, favorite soda, etc., all of which can do whatever they want as (in)consistently as they want.
More specifically, using any memory you have not allocated is undefined behavior. You get one byte from malloc(1), that's it.
When you ask malloc for 1 byte, it will probably get 1 page (typically 4KB) from the operating system. This page will be allocated to the calling process so as long as you don't go out of the page boundary, you won't have any problems.
Note, however, that it is definitely undefined behavior!
Consider the following (hypothetical) example of what might happen when using malloc:
malloc(1)
If malloc is internally out of memory, it will ask the operating system some more. It will typically receive a page. Say it's 4KB in size with addresses starting at 0x1000
Your call returns giving you the address 0x1000 to use. Since you asked for 1 byte, it is defined behavior if you only use the address 0x1000.
Since the operating system has just allocated 4KB of memory to your process starting at address 0x1000, it will not complain if you read/write something from/to addresses 0x1000-0x1fff. So you can happily do so but it is undefined behavior.
Let's say you do another malloc(1)
Now malloc still has some memory left so it doesn't need to ask the operating system for more. It will probably return the address 0x1001.
If you had written to more than 1 byte using the address given from the first malloc, you will get into troubles when you use the address from the second malloc because you will overwrite the data.
So the point is you definitely get 1 byte from malloc but it might be that malloc internally has more memory allocated to you process.
No. It means that your program behaves badly. It writes to a memory location that it does not own.
You get undefined behavior - anything can happen. Don't do it and don't speculate about whether it works. Maybe it corrupts memory and you don't see it immediately. Only access memory within the allocated block size.
You may be allowed to use until the memory reaches some program memory or other point at which your applicaiton will most likely crash for accessing protected memory
So many responses and only one that gives the right explanation. While the page size, buffer overflow and undefined behaviour stories are true (and important) they do not exactly answer the original question. In fact any sane malloc implementation will allocate at least in size of the alignment requirement of an intor a void *. Why, because if it allocated only 1 byte then the next chunk of memory wouldn't be aligned anymore. There's always some book keeping data around your allocated blocks, these data structures are nearly always aligned to some multiple of 4. While some architectures can access words on unaligned addresses (x86) they do incure some penalties for doing that, so allocator implementer avoid that. Even in slab allocators there's no point in having a 1 byte pool as small size allocs are rare in practice. So it is very likely that there's 4 or 8 bytes real room in your malloc'd byte (this doesn't mean you may use that 'feature', it's wrong).
EDIT: Besides, most malloc reserve bigger chunks than asked for to avoid to many copy operations when calling realloc. As a test you can try using realloc in a loop with growing allocation size and compare the returned pointer, you will see that it changes only after a certain threshold.
You just got lucky there. You are writing to locations which you don't own this leads to undefined behavior.
On most platforms you can not just allocate one byte. There is often also a bit of housekeeping done by malloc to remember the amount of allocated memory. This yields to the fact that you usually "allocate" memory rounded up to the next 4 or 8 bytes. But this is not a defined behaviour.
If you use a few bytes more you'll very likeley get an access violation.
To answer your second question, the standard specifically mandates that malloc(0) be legal. Returned value is implementation-dependent, and can be either NULL or a regular memory address. In either case, you can (and should) legally call free on the return value when done. Even when non-NULL, you must not access data at that address.
malloc allocates the amount of memory you ask in heap and then return a pointer to void (void *) that can be cast to whatever you want.
It is responsibility of the programmer to use only the memory that has been allocate.
Writing (and even reading in protected environment) where you are not supposed can cause all sort of random problems at execution time. If you are lucky your program crash immediately with an exception and you can quite easily find the bug and fix it. If you aren't lucky it will crash randomly or produce unexpected behaviors.
For the Murphy's Law, "Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong" and as a corollary of that, "It will go wrong at the right time, producing the most large amount of damage".
It is sadly true. The only way to prevent that, is to avoid that in the language that you can actually do something like that.
Modern languages do not allow the programmer to do write in memory where he/she is not supposed (at least doing standard programming). That is how Java got a lot of its traction. I prefer C++ to C. You can still make damages using pointers but it is less likely. That is the reason why Smart Pointers are so popular.
In order to fix these kind of problems, a debug version of the malloc library can be handy. You need to call a check function periodically to sense if the memory was corrupted.
When I used to work intensively on C/C++ at work, we used Rational Purify that in practice replace the standard malloc (new in C++) and free (delete in C++) and it is able to return quite accurate report on where the program did something it was not supposed. However you will never be sure 100% that you do not have any error in your code. If you have a condition that happen extremely rarely, when you execute the program you may not incur in that condition. It will eventually happen in production on the most busy day on the most sensitive data (according to Murphy's Law ;-)
It could be that you're in Debug mode, where a call to malloc will actually call _malloc_dbg. The debug version will allocate more space than you have requested to cope with buffer overflows. I guess that if you ran this in Release mode you might (hopefully) get a crash instead.
You should use new and delete operators in c++... And a safe pointer to control that operations doesn't reach the limit of the array allocated...
There is no "C runtime". C is glorified assembler. It will happily let you walk all over the address space and do whatever you want with it, which is why it's the language of choice for writing OS kernels. Your program is an example of a heap corruption bug, which is a common security vulnerability. If you wrote a long enough string to that address, you'd eventually overrun the end of the heap and get a segmentation fault, but not before you overwrote a lot of other important things first.
When malloc() doesn't have enough free memory in its reserve pool to satisfy an allocation, it grabs pages from the kernel in chunks of at least 4 kb, and often much larger, so you're probably writing into reserved but un-malloc()ed space when you initially exceed the bounds of your allocation, which is why your test case always works. Actually honoring allocation addresses and sizes is completely voluntary, so you can assign a random address to a pointer, without calling malloc() at all, and start working with that as a character string, and as long as that random address happens to be in a writable memory segment like the heap or the stack, everything will seem to work, at least until you try to use whatever memory you were corrupting by doing so.
strcpy() doesn't check if the memory it's writing to is allocated. It just takes the destination address and writes the source character by character until it reaches the '\0'. So, if the destination memory allocated is smaller than the source, you just wrote over memory. This is a dangerous bug because it is very hard to track down.
puts() writes the string until it reaches '\0'.
My guess is that malloc(0) only returns NULL and not cause a run-time error.
My answer is in responce to Why does printf not seg fault or produce garbage?
From
The C programming language by Denis Ritchie & Kernighan
typedef long Align; /* for alignment to long boundary */
union header { /* block header */
struct {
union header *ptr; /* next block if on free list */
unsigned size; /* size of this block */
} s;
Align x; /* force alignment of blocks */
};
typedef union header Header;
The Align field is never used;it just forces each header to be aligned on a worst-case boundary.
In malloc,the requested size in characters is rounded up to the proper number of header-sized units; the block that will be allocated contains
one more unit, for the header itself, and this is the value recorded in the
size field of the header.
The pointer returned by malloc points at the free space, not at the header itself.
The user can do anything with the space requested, but if anything is written outside of the allocated space the list is likely to be scrambled.
-----------------------------------------
| | SIZE | |
-----------------------------------------
| |
points to |-----address returned touser
next free
block
-> a block returned by malloc
In statement
char* test = malloc(1);
malloc() will try to search consecutive bytes from the heap section of RAM if requested bytes are available and it returns the address as below
--------------------------------------------------------------
| free memory | memory in size allocated for user | |
----------------------------------------------------------------
0x100(assume address returned by malloc)
test
So when malloc(1) executed it won't allocate just 1 byte, it allocated some extra bytes to maintain above structure/heap table. you can find out how much actual memory allocated when you requested only 1 byte by printing test[-1] because just to before that block contain the size.
char* test = malloc(1);
printf("memory allocated in bytes = %d\n",test[-1]);
If the size passed is zero, and ptr is not NULL then the call is equivalent to free.
char *cp = (char *) malloc(1);
strcpy(cp, "123456789");
puts(cp);
output is "123456789" on both gcc (Linux) and Visual C++ Express, does that mean when there is free memory, I can actually use more than what I've allocated with malloc()?
and why malloc(0) doesn't cause runtime error?
Thanks.
You've asked a very good question and maybe this will whet your appetite about operating systems. Already you know you've managed to achieve something with this code that you wouldn't ordinarily expect to do. So you would never do this in code you want to make portable.
To be more specific, and this depends entirely on your operating system and CPU architecture, the operating system allocates "pages" of memory to your program - typically this can be in the order of 4 kilobytes. The operating system is the guardian of pages and will immediately terminate any program that attempts to access a page it has not been assigned.
malloc, on the other hand, is not an operating system function but a C library call. It can be implemented in many ways. It is likely that your call to malloc resulted in a page request from the operating system. Then malloc would have decided to give you a pointer to a single byte inside that page. When you wrote to the memory from the location you were given you were just writing in a "page" that the operating system had granted your program, and thus the operating system will not see any wrong doing.
The real problems, of course, will begin when you continue to call malloc to assign more memory. It will eventually return pointers to the locations you just wrote over. This is called a "buffer overflow" when you write to memory locations that are legal (from an operating system perspective) but could potentially be overwriting memory another part of the program will also be using.
If you continue to learn about this subject you'll begin to understand how programs can be exploited using such "buffer overflow" techniques - even to the point where you begin to write assembly language instructions directly into areas of memory that will be executed by another part of your program.
When you get to this stage you'll have gained much wisdom. But please be ethical and do not use it to wreak havoc in the universe!
PS when I say "operating system" above I really mean "operating system in conjunction with privileged CPU access". The CPU and MMU (memory management unit) triggers particular interrupts or callbacks into the operating system if a process attempts to use a page that has not been allocated to that process. The operating system then cleanly shuts down your application and allows the system to continue functioning. In the old days, before memory management units and privileged CPU instructions, you could practically write anywhere in memory at any time - and then your system would be totally at the mercy of the consequences of that memory write!
No. You get undefined behavior. That means anything can happen, from it crashing (yay) to it "working" (boo), to it reformatting your hard drive and filling it with text files that say "UB, UB, UB..." (wat).
There's no point in wondering what happens after that, because it depends on your compiler, platform, environment, time of day, favorite soda, etc., all of which can do whatever they want as (in)consistently as they want.
More specifically, using any memory you have not allocated is undefined behavior. You get one byte from malloc(1), that's it.
When you ask malloc for 1 byte, it will probably get 1 page (typically 4KB) from the operating system. This page will be allocated to the calling process so as long as you don't go out of the page boundary, you won't have any problems.
Note, however, that it is definitely undefined behavior!
Consider the following (hypothetical) example of what might happen when using malloc:
malloc(1)
If malloc is internally out of memory, it will ask the operating system some more. It will typically receive a page. Say it's 4KB in size with addresses starting at 0x1000
Your call returns giving you the address 0x1000 to use. Since you asked for 1 byte, it is defined behavior if you only use the address 0x1000.
Since the operating system has just allocated 4KB of memory to your process starting at address 0x1000, it will not complain if you read/write something from/to addresses 0x1000-0x1fff. So you can happily do so but it is undefined behavior.
Let's say you do another malloc(1)
Now malloc still has some memory left so it doesn't need to ask the operating system for more. It will probably return the address 0x1001.
If you had written to more than 1 byte using the address given from the first malloc, you will get into troubles when you use the address from the second malloc because you will overwrite the data.
So the point is you definitely get 1 byte from malloc but it might be that malloc internally has more memory allocated to you process.
No. It means that your program behaves badly. It writes to a memory location that it does not own.
You get undefined behavior - anything can happen. Don't do it and don't speculate about whether it works. Maybe it corrupts memory and you don't see it immediately. Only access memory within the allocated block size.
You may be allowed to use until the memory reaches some program memory or other point at which your applicaiton will most likely crash for accessing protected memory
So many responses and only one that gives the right explanation. While the page size, buffer overflow and undefined behaviour stories are true (and important) they do not exactly answer the original question. In fact any sane malloc implementation will allocate at least in size of the alignment requirement of an intor a void *. Why, because if it allocated only 1 byte then the next chunk of memory wouldn't be aligned anymore. There's always some book keeping data around your allocated blocks, these data structures are nearly always aligned to some multiple of 4. While some architectures can access words on unaligned addresses (x86) they do incure some penalties for doing that, so allocator implementer avoid that. Even in slab allocators there's no point in having a 1 byte pool as small size allocs are rare in practice. So it is very likely that there's 4 or 8 bytes real room in your malloc'd byte (this doesn't mean you may use that 'feature', it's wrong).
EDIT: Besides, most malloc reserve bigger chunks than asked for to avoid to many copy operations when calling realloc. As a test you can try using realloc in a loop with growing allocation size and compare the returned pointer, you will see that it changes only after a certain threshold.
You just got lucky there. You are writing to locations which you don't own this leads to undefined behavior.
On most platforms you can not just allocate one byte. There is often also a bit of housekeeping done by malloc to remember the amount of allocated memory. This yields to the fact that you usually "allocate" memory rounded up to the next 4 or 8 bytes. But this is not a defined behaviour.
If you use a few bytes more you'll very likeley get an access violation.
To answer your second question, the standard specifically mandates that malloc(0) be legal. Returned value is implementation-dependent, and can be either NULL or a regular memory address. In either case, you can (and should) legally call free on the return value when done. Even when non-NULL, you must not access data at that address.
malloc allocates the amount of memory you ask in heap and then return a pointer to void (void *) that can be cast to whatever you want.
It is responsibility of the programmer to use only the memory that has been allocate.
Writing (and even reading in protected environment) where you are not supposed can cause all sort of random problems at execution time. If you are lucky your program crash immediately with an exception and you can quite easily find the bug and fix it. If you aren't lucky it will crash randomly or produce unexpected behaviors.
For the Murphy's Law, "Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong" and as a corollary of that, "It will go wrong at the right time, producing the most large amount of damage".
It is sadly true. The only way to prevent that, is to avoid that in the language that you can actually do something like that.
Modern languages do not allow the programmer to do write in memory where he/she is not supposed (at least doing standard programming). That is how Java got a lot of its traction. I prefer C++ to C. You can still make damages using pointers but it is less likely. That is the reason why Smart Pointers are so popular.
In order to fix these kind of problems, a debug version of the malloc library can be handy. You need to call a check function periodically to sense if the memory was corrupted.
When I used to work intensively on C/C++ at work, we used Rational Purify that in practice replace the standard malloc (new in C++) and free (delete in C++) and it is able to return quite accurate report on where the program did something it was not supposed. However you will never be sure 100% that you do not have any error in your code. If you have a condition that happen extremely rarely, when you execute the program you may not incur in that condition. It will eventually happen in production on the most busy day on the most sensitive data (according to Murphy's Law ;-)
It could be that you're in Debug mode, where a call to malloc will actually call _malloc_dbg. The debug version will allocate more space than you have requested to cope with buffer overflows. I guess that if you ran this in Release mode you might (hopefully) get a crash instead.
You should use new and delete operators in c++... And a safe pointer to control that operations doesn't reach the limit of the array allocated...
There is no "C runtime". C is glorified assembler. It will happily let you walk all over the address space and do whatever you want with it, which is why it's the language of choice for writing OS kernels. Your program is an example of a heap corruption bug, which is a common security vulnerability. If you wrote a long enough string to that address, you'd eventually overrun the end of the heap and get a segmentation fault, but not before you overwrote a lot of other important things first.
When malloc() doesn't have enough free memory in its reserve pool to satisfy an allocation, it grabs pages from the kernel in chunks of at least 4 kb, and often much larger, so you're probably writing into reserved but un-malloc()ed space when you initially exceed the bounds of your allocation, which is why your test case always works. Actually honoring allocation addresses and sizes is completely voluntary, so you can assign a random address to a pointer, without calling malloc() at all, and start working with that as a character string, and as long as that random address happens to be in a writable memory segment like the heap or the stack, everything will seem to work, at least until you try to use whatever memory you were corrupting by doing so.
strcpy() doesn't check if the memory it's writing to is allocated. It just takes the destination address and writes the source character by character until it reaches the '\0'. So, if the destination memory allocated is smaller than the source, you just wrote over memory. This is a dangerous bug because it is very hard to track down.
puts() writes the string until it reaches '\0'.
My guess is that malloc(0) only returns NULL and not cause a run-time error.
My answer is in responce to Why does printf not seg fault or produce garbage?
From
The C programming language by Denis Ritchie & Kernighan
typedef long Align; /* for alignment to long boundary */
union header { /* block header */
struct {
union header *ptr; /* next block if on free list */
unsigned size; /* size of this block */
} s;
Align x; /* force alignment of blocks */
};
typedef union header Header;
The Align field is never used;it just forces each header to be aligned on a worst-case boundary.
In malloc,the requested size in characters is rounded up to the proper number of header-sized units; the block that will be allocated contains
one more unit, for the header itself, and this is the value recorded in the
size field of the header.
The pointer returned by malloc points at the free space, not at the header itself.
The user can do anything with the space requested, but if anything is written outside of the allocated space the list is likely to be scrambled.
-----------------------------------------
| | SIZE | |
-----------------------------------------
| |
points to |-----address returned touser
next free
block
-> a block returned by malloc
In statement
char* test = malloc(1);
malloc() will try to search consecutive bytes from the heap section of RAM if requested bytes are available and it returns the address as below
--------------------------------------------------------------
| free memory | memory in size allocated for user | |
----------------------------------------------------------------
0x100(assume address returned by malloc)
test
So when malloc(1) executed it won't allocate just 1 byte, it allocated some extra bytes to maintain above structure/heap table. you can find out how much actual memory allocated when you requested only 1 byte by printing test[-1] because just to before that block contain the size.
char* test = malloc(1);
printf("memory allocated in bytes = %d\n",test[-1]);
If the size passed is zero, and ptr is not NULL then the call is equivalent to free.
It has never happened to me, and I've programming for years now.
Can someone give me an example of a non-trivial program in which malloc will actually not work?
I'm not talking about memory exhaustion: I'm looking for the simple case when you are allocating just one memory block in a bound size given by the user, lets say an integer, causes malloc to fail.
You need to do some work in embedded systems, you'll frequently get NULL returned there :-)
It's much harder to run out of memory in modern massive-address-space-and-backing-store systems but still quite possible in applcations where you process large amounts of data, such as GIS or in-memory databases, or in places where your buggy code results in a memory leak.
But it really doesn't matter whether you've never experienced it before - the standard says it can happen so you should cater for it. I haven't been hit by a car in the last few decades either but that doesn't mean I wander across roads without looking first.
And re your edit:
I'm not talking about memory exhaustion, ...
the very definition of memory exhaustion is malloc not giving you the desired space. It's irrelevant whether that's caused by allocating all available memory, or heap fragmentation meaning you cannot get a contiguous block even though the aggregate of all free blocks in the memory arena is higher, or artificially limiting your address space usage such using the standards-compliant function:
void *malloc (size_t sz) { return NULL; }
The C standard doesn't distinguish between modes of failure, only that it succeeds or fails.
Yes.
Just try to malloc more memory than your system can provide (either by exhausting your address space, or virtual memory - whichever is smaller).
malloc(SIZE_MAX)
will probably do it. If not, repeat a few times until you run out.
Any program at all written in c that needs to dynamically allocate more memory than the OS currently allows.
For fun, if you are using ubuntu type in
ulimit -v 5000
Any program you run will most likely crash (due to a malloc failure) as you've limited the amount of available memory to any one process to a pithy amount.
Unless your memory is already completely reserved (or heavily fragmented), the only way to have malloc() return a NULL-pointer is to request space of size zero:
char *foo = malloc(0);
Citing from the C99 standard, §7.20.3, subsection 1:
If the size of the space requested is zero, the behavior is implementationdefined: either a null pointer is returned, or the behavior is as if the size were some
nonzero value, except that the returned pointer shall not be used to access an object.
In other words, malloc(0) may return a NULL-pointer or a valid pointer to zero allocated bytes.
Pick any platform, though embedded is probably easier. malloc (or new) a ton of RAM (or leak RAM over time or even fragment it by using naive algorithms). Boom. malloc does return NULL for me on occasion when "bad" things are happening.
In response to your edit. Yes again. Memory fragmentation over time can make it so that even a single allocation of an int can fail. Also keep in mind that malloc doesn't just allocate 4 bytes for an int, but can grab as much space as it wants. It has its own book-keeping stuff and quite often will grab 32-64 bytes minimum.
On a more-or-less standard system, using a standard one-parameter malloc, there are three possible failure modes (that I can think of):
The size of allocation requested is not allowed. Eg, some systems may not allow an allocation > 16M, even if more storage is available.
A contiguous free area of the size requested, with default boundary, cannot be located in the heap. There may still be plenty of heap, but just not enough in one piece.
The total allocated heap has exceeded some "artificial" limit. Eg, the user may be prohibited from allocation more than 100M, even if there's 200M free and available to the "system" in a single combined heap.
(Of course, you can get combinations of 2 and 3, since some systems allocate non-contiguous blocks of address space to the heap as it grows, placing the "heap size limit" on the total of the blocks.)
Note that some environments support additional malloc parameters such as alignment and pool ID which can add their own twists.
Just check the manual page of malloc.
On success, a pointer to the memory block allocated by the function.
The type of this pointer is always void*, which can be cast to the desired type of data pointer in order to be dereferenceable.
If the function failed to allocate the requested block of memory, a null pointer is returned.
Yes. Malloc will return NULL when the kernel/system lib are certain that no memory can be allocated.
The reason you typically don't see this on modern machines is that Malloc doesn't really allocate memory, but rather it requests some “virtual address space” be reserved for your program so you might write in it. Kernels such as modern Linux actually over commit, that is they let you allocate more memory than your system can actually provide (swap + RAM) as long as it all fits in the address space of the system (typically 48bits on 64bit platforms, IIRC). Thus on these systems you will probably trigger an OOM killer before you will trigger a return of a NULL pointer. A good example is a 512MB RAM in a 32bit machine: it's trivial to write a C program that will be eaten by the OOM killer because of it trying to malloc all available RAM + swap.
(Overcomitting can be disabled at compile time on Linux, so it depends on the build options whether or not a given Linux kernel will overcommit. However, stock desktop distro kernels do it.)
Since you asked for an example, here's a program that will (eventually) see malloc return NULL:
perror();void*malloc();main(){for(;;)if(!malloc(999)){perror(0);return 0;}}
What? You don't like deliberately obfuscated code? ;) (If it runs for a few minutes and doesn't crash on your machine, kill it, change 999 to a bigger number and try again.)
EDIT: If it doesn't work no matter how big the number is, then what's happening is that your system is saying "Here's some memory!" but so long as you don't try to use it, it doesn't get allocated. In which case:
perror();char*p;void*malloc();main(){for(;;){p=malloc(999);if(p)*p=0;else{perror(0);return 0;}}
Should do the trick. If we can use GCC extentions, I think we can get it even smaller by changing char*p;void*malloc(); to void*p,*malloc(); but if you really wanted to golf you'd be on the Code Golf SE.
when the malloc param is negative or 0 or you have no memory left on heap.
I had to correct somebody's code which looked like this.
const int8_t bufferSize = 128;
void *buffer = malloc(bufferSize);
Here buffer is NULL because bufferSize is actually -128
char *cp = (char *) malloc(1);
strcpy(cp, "123456789");
puts(cp);
output is "123456789" on both gcc (Linux) and Visual C++ Express, does that mean when there is free memory, I can actually use more than what I've allocated with malloc()?
and why malloc(0) doesn't cause runtime error?
Thanks.
You've asked a very good question and maybe this will whet your appetite about operating systems. Already you know you've managed to achieve something with this code that you wouldn't ordinarily expect to do. So you would never do this in code you want to make portable.
To be more specific, and this depends entirely on your operating system and CPU architecture, the operating system allocates "pages" of memory to your program - typically this can be in the order of 4 kilobytes. The operating system is the guardian of pages and will immediately terminate any program that attempts to access a page it has not been assigned.
malloc, on the other hand, is not an operating system function but a C library call. It can be implemented in many ways. It is likely that your call to malloc resulted in a page request from the operating system. Then malloc would have decided to give you a pointer to a single byte inside that page. When you wrote to the memory from the location you were given you were just writing in a "page" that the operating system had granted your program, and thus the operating system will not see any wrong doing.
The real problems, of course, will begin when you continue to call malloc to assign more memory. It will eventually return pointers to the locations you just wrote over. This is called a "buffer overflow" when you write to memory locations that are legal (from an operating system perspective) but could potentially be overwriting memory another part of the program will also be using.
If you continue to learn about this subject you'll begin to understand how programs can be exploited using such "buffer overflow" techniques - even to the point where you begin to write assembly language instructions directly into areas of memory that will be executed by another part of your program.
When you get to this stage you'll have gained much wisdom. But please be ethical and do not use it to wreak havoc in the universe!
PS when I say "operating system" above I really mean "operating system in conjunction with privileged CPU access". The CPU and MMU (memory management unit) triggers particular interrupts or callbacks into the operating system if a process attempts to use a page that has not been allocated to that process. The operating system then cleanly shuts down your application and allows the system to continue functioning. In the old days, before memory management units and privileged CPU instructions, you could practically write anywhere in memory at any time - and then your system would be totally at the mercy of the consequences of that memory write!
No. You get undefined behavior. That means anything can happen, from it crashing (yay) to it "working" (boo), to it reformatting your hard drive and filling it with text files that say "UB, UB, UB..." (wat).
There's no point in wondering what happens after that, because it depends on your compiler, platform, environment, time of day, favorite soda, etc., all of which can do whatever they want as (in)consistently as they want.
More specifically, using any memory you have not allocated is undefined behavior. You get one byte from malloc(1), that's it.
When you ask malloc for 1 byte, it will probably get 1 page (typically 4KB) from the operating system. This page will be allocated to the calling process so as long as you don't go out of the page boundary, you won't have any problems.
Note, however, that it is definitely undefined behavior!
Consider the following (hypothetical) example of what might happen when using malloc:
malloc(1)
If malloc is internally out of memory, it will ask the operating system some more. It will typically receive a page. Say it's 4KB in size with addresses starting at 0x1000
Your call returns giving you the address 0x1000 to use. Since you asked for 1 byte, it is defined behavior if you only use the address 0x1000.
Since the operating system has just allocated 4KB of memory to your process starting at address 0x1000, it will not complain if you read/write something from/to addresses 0x1000-0x1fff. So you can happily do so but it is undefined behavior.
Let's say you do another malloc(1)
Now malloc still has some memory left so it doesn't need to ask the operating system for more. It will probably return the address 0x1001.
If you had written to more than 1 byte using the address given from the first malloc, you will get into troubles when you use the address from the second malloc because you will overwrite the data.
So the point is you definitely get 1 byte from malloc but it might be that malloc internally has more memory allocated to you process.
No. It means that your program behaves badly. It writes to a memory location that it does not own.
You get undefined behavior - anything can happen. Don't do it and don't speculate about whether it works. Maybe it corrupts memory and you don't see it immediately. Only access memory within the allocated block size.
You may be allowed to use until the memory reaches some program memory or other point at which your applicaiton will most likely crash for accessing protected memory
So many responses and only one that gives the right explanation. While the page size, buffer overflow and undefined behaviour stories are true (and important) they do not exactly answer the original question. In fact any sane malloc implementation will allocate at least in size of the alignment requirement of an intor a void *. Why, because if it allocated only 1 byte then the next chunk of memory wouldn't be aligned anymore. There's always some book keeping data around your allocated blocks, these data structures are nearly always aligned to some multiple of 4. While some architectures can access words on unaligned addresses (x86) they do incure some penalties for doing that, so allocator implementer avoid that. Even in slab allocators there's no point in having a 1 byte pool as small size allocs are rare in practice. So it is very likely that there's 4 or 8 bytes real room in your malloc'd byte (this doesn't mean you may use that 'feature', it's wrong).
EDIT: Besides, most malloc reserve bigger chunks than asked for to avoid to many copy operations when calling realloc. As a test you can try using realloc in a loop with growing allocation size and compare the returned pointer, you will see that it changes only after a certain threshold.
You just got lucky there. You are writing to locations which you don't own this leads to undefined behavior.
On most platforms you can not just allocate one byte. There is often also a bit of housekeeping done by malloc to remember the amount of allocated memory. This yields to the fact that you usually "allocate" memory rounded up to the next 4 or 8 bytes. But this is not a defined behaviour.
If you use a few bytes more you'll very likeley get an access violation.
To answer your second question, the standard specifically mandates that malloc(0) be legal. Returned value is implementation-dependent, and can be either NULL or a regular memory address. In either case, you can (and should) legally call free on the return value when done. Even when non-NULL, you must not access data at that address.
malloc allocates the amount of memory you ask in heap and then return a pointer to void (void *) that can be cast to whatever you want.
It is responsibility of the programmer to use only the memory that has been allocate.
Writing (and even reading in protected environment) where you are not supposed can cause all sort of random problems at execution time. If you are lucky your program crash immediately with an exception and you can quite easily find the bug and fix it. If you aren't lucky it will crash randomly or produce unexpected behaviors.
For the Murphy's Law, "Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong" and as a corollary of that, "It will go wrong at the right time, producing the most large amount of damage".
It is sadly true. The only way to prevent that, is to avoid that in the language that you can actually do something like that.
Modern languages do not allow the programmer to do write in memory where he/she is not supposed (at least doing standard programming). That is how Java got a lot of its traction. I prefer C++ to C. You can still make damages using pointers but it is less likely. That is the reason why Smart Pointers are so popular.
In order to fix these kind of problems, a debug version of the malloc library can be handy. You need to call a check function periodically to sense if the memory was corrupted.
When I used to work intensively on C/C++ at work, we used Rational Purify that in practice replace the standard malloc (new in C++) and free (delete in C++) and it is able to return quite accurate report on where the program did something it was not supposed. However you will never be sure 100% that you do not have any error in your code. If you have a condition that happen extremely rarely, when you execute the program you may not incur in that condition. It will eventually happen in production on the most busy day on the most sensitive data (according to Murphy's Law ;-)
It could be that you're in Debug mode, where a call to malloc will actually call _malloc_dbg. The debug version will allocate more space than you have requested to cope with buffer overflows. I guess that if you ran this in Release mode you might (hopefully) get a crash instead.
You should use new and delete operators in c++... And a safe pointer to control that operations doesn't reach the limit of the array allocated...
There is no "C runtime". C is glorified assembler. It will happily let you walk all over the address space and do whatever you want with it, which is why it's the language of choice for writing OS kernels. Your program is an example of a heap corruption bug, which is a common security vulnerability. If you wrote a long enough string to that address, you'd eventually overrun the end of the heap and get a segmentation fault, but not before you overwrote a lot of other important things first.
When malloc() doesn't have enough free memory in its reserve pool to satisfy an allocation, it grabs pages from the kernel in chunks of at least 4 kb, and often much larger, so you're probably writing into reserved but un-malloc()ed space when you initially exceed the bounds of your allocation, which is why your test case always works. Actually honoring allocation addresses and sizes is completely voluntary, so you can assign a random address to a pointer, without calling malloc() at all, and start working with that as a character string, and as long as that random address happens to be in a writable memory segment like the heap or the stack, everything will seem to work, at least until you try to use whatever memory you were corrupting by doing so.
strcpy() doesn't check if the memory it's writing to is allocated. It just takes the destination address and writes the source character by character until it reaches the '\0'. So, if the destination memory allocated is smaller than the source, you just wrote over memory. This is a dangerous bug because it is very hard to track down.
puts() writes the string until it reaches '\0'.
My guess is that malloc(0) only returns NULL and not cause a run-time error.
My answer is in responce to Why does printf not seg fault or produce garbage?
From
The C programming language by Denis Ritchie & Kernighan
typedef long Align; /* for alignment to long boundary */
union header { /* block header */
struct {
union header *ptr; /* next block if on free list */
unsigned size; /* size of this block */
} s;
Align x; /* force alignment of blocks */
};
typedef union header Header;
The Align field is never used;it just forces each header to be aligned on a worst-case boundary.
In malloc,the requested size in characters is rounded up to the proper number of header-sized units; the block that will be allocated contains
one more unit, for the header itself, and this is the value recorded in the
size field of the header.
The pointer returned by malloc points at the free space, not at the header itself.
The user can do anything with the space requested, but if anything is written outside of the allocated space the list is likely to be scrambled.
-----------------------------------------
| | SIZE | |
-----------------------------------------
| |
points to |-----address returned touser
next free
block
-> a block returned by malloc
In statement
char* test = malloc(1);
malloc() will try to search consecutive bytes from the heap section of RAM if requested bytes are available and it returns the address as below
--------------------------------------------------------------
| free memory | memory in size allocated for user | |
----------------------------------------------------------------
0x100(assume address returned by malloc)
test
So when malloc(1) executed it won't allocate just 1 byte, it allocated some extra bytes to maintain above structure/heap table. you can find out how much actual memory allocated when you requested only 1 byte by printing test[-1] because just to before that block contain the size.
char* test = malloc(1);
printf("memory allocated in bytes = %d\n",test[-1]);
If the size passed is zero, and ptr is not NULL then the call is equivalent to free.
I have read that free() "generally" does not return memory to the OS. Can we portably make use of this feature of free(). For example,is this portable?
/* Assume I know i would need memory equivalent to 10000 integers at max
during the lifetime of the process */
unsigned int* p = malloc(sizeof(unsigned int) * 10000);
if ( p == NULL)
return 1;
free(p);
/* Different points in the program */
unsigned int* q = malloc(sizeof(unsigned int) * 5);
/* No need to check for the return value of malloc */
I am writing a demo where I would know in advance how many call contexts to support.
Is it feasible to allocate "n" number of "call contexts" structures in advance and then free them immediately. Would that guarantee that my future malloc calls would not fail?
Does this give me any advantage with regards to efficiency? I am thinking one less "if" check plus would memory management work better if a large chunk was initially acquired and is now available with free. Would this cause less fragmentation?
You would be better off keeping the initial block of memory allocated then using a pool to make it available to clients in your application. It isn't good form to rely on esoteric behaviors to maintain the stability of your code. If anything changes, you could be dealing with bad pointers and having program crashes.
You are asking for a portable and low level way to control what happens on the OS side of the memory interface.
On any OS (because c is one of the most widely ported languages out there).
Think about that and keep in mind that OSs differ in their construction and goals and have widely varying sets of needs and properties.
There is a reason the usual c APIs only define how things should look and behave from the c side of the interface, and not how things should be on the OS side.
No, you can't reliably do such a thing. It is portable only in the sense that it's valid C and will probably compile anywhere you try it, but it is still incorrect to rely on this supposed (and undocumented) behaviour.
You will also not get any appreciably better performance. A simple check for NULL returns from malloc() is not what's making your program slow. If you think all your calls to malloc() and free() are slowing your program down, write your own allocation system with the behaviour you want.
You cannot portably rely on any such behavior of malloc(). You can only rely on malloc() giving you a pointer to a block memory of the given size which you can use until you call free().
Hmm, no. What malloc(3) does internally is call the brk(2) to extend the data segment if it's too small for given allocation request. It does touch some of the pages for its internal bookkeeping, but generally not all allocated pages might be backed by physical memory at that point.
This is because many OS-es do memory overcommit - promising the application whatever it requested regardless of available physical memory in hopes that not all memory will be used by the app, that other apps release memory/terminate, and falling back on swapping as last resort. Say on Linux malloc(3) pretty much never fails.
When memory actually gets referenced the kernel will have to find available physical pages to back it up, create/update page tables and TLBs, etc. - normal handling for a page fault. So again, no, you will not get any speedup later unless you go and touch every page in that allocated chunk.
Disclamer: the above is might not be accurate for Windows (so, no again - nothing close to portable.)
No, there's no guarantee free() will not release the memory back, and there's no guarantee your second malloc will succeed.
Even platforms who "generally" don't return memory to the OS, does so at times if it can. You could end up with your first malloc succeeding, and your next malloc not succeding since in the mean time some other part of the system used up your memory.
Not at all. It's not portable at all. In addition, there's no guarantee that another process won't have used the memory in question- C runs on many devices like embedded where virtual memory addressing doesn't exist. Nor will it reduce fragmentation- you'd have to know the page size of the machine and allocate an exact number of pages- and then, when you freed them, they'd be just unfragmented again.
If you really want to guarantee malloced memory, malloc a large block and manually place objects into it. That's the only way. As for efficiency, you must be running on an incredibly starved device in order to save a few ifs.
malloc(3) also does mmap(2), consequently, free(3) does munmap(2), consequently, second malloc() can in theory fail.
The C standard can be read as requiring this, but from a practical viewpoint there are implementations known that don't follow that, so whether it's required or not you can't really depend on it.
So, if you want this to be guaranteed, you'll pretty much need to write your own allocator. A typical strategy is to allocate a big block from malloc (or whatever) and sub-allocate pieces for the rest of the program to use out of that large block (or perhaps a number of large blocks).
For better control you should create your own memory allocator. An example of memory allocator is this one. This is the only way you will have predictable results. Everything else that relies on obscure/undocumented features and works can be attributed to luck.