[dev_dwarf]

In the "bump up" version you could remove both the checked_add branches and replace them with a single check at the end, making the amount of branches the same.

Quick example: https://godbolt.org/z/rdv4qnrs8.

*edited to update the example, realized I messed up the comparison logic.

[ridiculous_fish]

I think this doesn't work because `aligned + size` may wrap all the way around into the valid region again. For example if aligned == ptr + 1, and size is usize::MAX, we will end up with new_ptr == ptr and the allocation will wrongly succeed.

[dev_dwarf]

Interesting point. I modified my example to test what you described. I had to play with the compilation flags to get the allocs to not be optimized out and to not panic when the integer overflow happens, but otherwise I didn't change the logic. I'm pretty sure my implementation is correctly handling the case you mention, evidenced by it returning a null pointer.

Link: https://godbolt.org/z/f1jGW6Pa3

Update: NVM, definitely not being handled correctly. https://godbolt.org/z/cMTe1o979

[loeg]

The straightforward answer is: don't tolerate ridiculous alignments.

[saagarjha]

You'd need to check for that, though.

[loeg]

No, just restrict the domain of the alignment input to like, u8. Maybe u16. Either way, it is easy to ensure your bump allocation space is far enough away from SIZE_MAX.

[sltkr]

That version is unsafe: what if size == 0xfff..fff and alignment is needed? You will end up with ptr <= new_ptr < end, seemingly a valid result, but actually with not enough space.

edit: code moved to a toplevel comment

[loeg]

No allocator can be expected to allocate usize::MAX, so it doesn't really matter.

[sltkr]

It matters because if the allocator cannot allocate a given amount, it should reliably return NULL to iform the caller that the allocation failed, not return a random invalid pointer that's not usable, which will lead to undefined behavior.

[loeg]

The API should restrict callers from providing bogus values at all.

[rictic]

How would the API do that without more overhead than the check that GP is suggesting?

[loeg]

For some uses it might be reasonable to restrict the size input to compile-time constants, which can be verified at compile time. Or you could have a newtype with a checked safe constructor and an unchecked unsafe constructor, which allows bypassing the overhead when you know the sizes are reasonable. On 64-bit systems, it is reasonable in many domains to restrict allocation size to u32. There are lots of possible ways to approach this without falling back to "tolerate any usize input."

[dev_dwarf]

Agreed. The question really is if you should demand the user to enforce that constraint on the size they pass to you, or if the function itself should signal an error in that case.

[loeg]

I think it would be pretty reasonable to have an input type for that parameter that isn't a full usize and is instead some more restricted type that can only represent smaller values. The alignment parameter could be, like, u8, or maybe u16.

[sltkr]

This still doesn't solve the overflow problem.

It's also too limiting: with u8 you can't ask for page-aligned data, and with u16 not for hugepage-aligned data. Granted, those aren't exactly prime use cases for a bump allocator, but it seems like poor design to limit the API unnecessarily.

[loeg]

It fully solves the overflow problem. You don't need page-aligned data in a bump allocator.

[dev_dwarf]

For the alignment parameter I agree.

[loeg]

For both.