Re: partial analysis of vulndev-1.c

["Nexus" <nexus () patrol i-way co uk>]

> Most likely the memory allocator never allocated blocks that small. So
when
> you asked for a 10-byte block, you got one that was 14 or 16 bytes or
> possibly even more.
>
> DS

That's what I thought - it seems that the way malloc() is handled behind the
scenes is very system dependant; as well as a possible minimum block size,
it could also be padded or aligned in some way and end up rather different
to what you would expect from the code.

Cheers.