Calling a *checked* stack overflow a "buffer overflow" is totally disingenuous.https://twitter.com/ErrataRob/status/1193242295207899141 …
-
-
Replying to @pcwalton
Paul Crowley Retweeted Robᵉʳᵗ Graham 😷
He seems to think stack overflows are not always checked.https://twitter.com/ErrataRob/status/1193243682444578816 …
Paul Crowley added,
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @ciphergoth
There's always a guard page and at least on most platforms there is a stack probe as well for large activation records. Alloca is forbidden so that avenue of exploitation is closed off. So this is unexploitable on x86 and is probably unexploitable elsewhere too.
2 replies 0 retweets 14 likes -
Replying to @pcwalton
Is it considered a bug if a particular platform doesn't always catch stack overflows?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ciphergoth @pcwalton
I guess more specifically, is it considered a security bug?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ciphergoth
It's something we would like to implement on ARM. Mostly requires some LLVM work.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
The most important thing is that using the lack of stack probes on ARM as an excuse to write in C is ridiculous. Rust will get them eventually... it's not even that much work. C will remain memory unsafe forever.
-
-
Replying to @pcwalton
This 5 year old bug which you fixed makes me think that where there are no stack probes, there are explicit checks at allocation timehttps://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/16012 …
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.