[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: libsigsegv?

From: Dmitry Antipov
Subject: Re: libsigsegv?
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 19:49:19 +0400
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.1.0

On 09/11/2014 07:08 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

Apropos stack overflow protection: why not use libsigsegv if it is
available?  It is capable of doing what we want (AFAICT), and supports
more platforms, including MS-Windows.

1. Stefan's mood gets worse after each new library dependency.

2. Basically libsigsegv uses the following heuristics to distinguish between
   stack overflow and other kinds of SIGSEGVs:
   a) If the fault address is near the stack pointer, it's a stack overflow.
   b) If the fault address is near and beyond the bottom of the stack's virtual
      memory area, it's a stack overflow.
   c) If the stack pointer is near the bottom of the stack's virtual memory 
      it's a stack overflow.

   Currently we have only b), and this is the only thing which can be 
   staying in POSIX interfaces and without architecture-dependent tricks. a) may
   be implemented in a small forest of #ifdefs, and it doesn't worth using an
   extra library. c) is the most controversial - for example, on GNU/Linux it 
   by opening and reading /proc/self/maps.  Do you really want to open and read 
   on SIGSEGV?  I do not.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]