Question about secure mode and relationship to DieHarder

Nobody has claimed this yet.

Hi, all.
I am currently evaluating my tool, ArcHeap: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1903.00503.pdf

I saw mimalloc has secure mode, so I am testing it with my tool.
And it seems it has the similar bug with DieHarder (https://github.com/emeryberger/DieHard).

```
#include
#include
#include
#include

void* p[256];
uintptr_t buf[256];

int main() {
p[0] = malloc(622616);
p[1] = malloc(655362);
p[2] = malloc(786432);
free(p[2]);
// [VULN] Double free
free(p[2]);
p[3] = malloc(786456);
// [BUG] Found overlap
// p[3]=0x429b2ea2000 (size=917504), p[1]=0x429b2e42000 (size=786432)
fprintf(stderr, "p1: %p-%p, p2: %p-%p\n", p[3], p[3] + 917504, p[1], p[1] + 786432);
}
// The number of actions: 16
// [INFO] EVENT_OVERLAP is detected
```

This PoC always returns overlapping chunk in my Linux machine.
Does it based on https://github.com/emeryberger/DieHard, so it has the same bug?
Or is it just collision?

Start by reproducing the supplied C PoC in mimalloc secure mode on Linux and compare the reported allocation ranges after the double free. Read the secure-mode behavior and the DieHarder comparison in the project context. Done means determining whether the overlap is a genuine allocator vulnerability or an expected collision, with supporting evidence and a clear explanation.

Written by the indexing model from the issue text.