Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 23:05:49 -0700 (MST) From: Charles Mott <cmott@srv.net> To: Stephen McKay <syssgm@devetir.qld.gov.au> Cc: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG, syssgm@devetir.qld.gov.au Subject: Re: Trying to understand stack overflow Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.970213230057.7180C-100000@darkstar> In-Reply-To: <199702140448.OAA27909@ogre.devetir.qld.gov.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> The real problem here is lack of bounds checking on memory objects. I > remember Dennis Ritchie (hmm, or was it Ken T?) claim that he had modified > his system C compiler so that every C pointer implied length as well as > starting location. Thus, every pointer and array access could be checked > for illegitimate accesses. The penalty is doubling the size of every pointer > plus a run time checking cost. Would there be any problems with code that assumes a pointer is the same size as a long int? I know this sounds like a dumb question, but I have seen code that makes this assumption (some Linux drivers -- I can't remember exactly). Ch
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.91.970213230057.7180C-100000>