From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#18410: Use SAFE_ALLOCA etc. to avoid unbounded stack allocation. Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2014 16:17:41 +0300 Message-ID: <83lhptaq6i.fsf@gnu.org> References: <5409536B.5090201@cs.ucla.edu> <540C0741.8090900@cs.ucla.edu> <83bnqrcq7u.fsf@gnu.org> <540CC106.8040705@cs.ucla.edu> <83vboybzyv.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1410268702 24827 80.91.229.3 (9 Sep 2014 13:18:22 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2014 13:18:22 +0000 (UTC) Cc: eggert@cs.ucla.edu, 18410@debbugs.gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Sep 09 15:18:15 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1XRLJG-00025G-Ku for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 09 Sep 2014 15:18:14 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:49694 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XRLJG-0006Rv-7K for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 09 Sep 2014 09:18:14 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:38110) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XRLJ8-0006RG-Rb for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 09 Sep 2014 09:18:11 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XRLJ4-00064k-3G for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 09 Sep 2014 09:18:06 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:42995) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XRLJ4-00064e-08 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 09 Sep 2014 09:18:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1XRLJ3-0001lg-Lk for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 09 Sep 2014 09:18:01 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2014 13:18:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 18410 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch Original-Received: via spool by 18410-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B18410.14102686626764 (code B ref 18410); Tue, 09 Sep 2014 13:18:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 18410) by debbugs.gnu.org; 9 Sep 2014 13:17:42 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:34559 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1XRLIj-0001l1-M9 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 09 Sep 2014 09:17:42 -0400 Original-Received: from mtaout27.012.net.il ([80.179.55.183]:60546) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1XRLIf-0001km-Va for 18410@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 09 Sep 2014 09:17:39 -0400 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.mtaout27.012.net.il by mtaout27.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0NBM00E00XNK4900@mtaout27.012.net.il> for 18410@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 09 Sep 2014 16:11:49 +0300 (IDT) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by mtaout27.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0NBM00881XZPJ570@mtaout27.012.net.il>; Tue, 09 Sep 2014 16:11:49 +0300 (IDT) In-reply-to: X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x X-Received-From: 140.186.70.43 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:93181 Archived-At: > From: Stefan Monnier > Cc: Paul Eggert , 18410@debbugs.gnu.org > Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2014 08:48:50 -0400 > > >> Perhaps some of that discussion is moot now, with the stack overflow > >> checking that Dmitry added last month? > > I'd say it's definitely moot on systems where that stack-overflow code > > is working. > > I disagree. Even if the new stack-overflow code works, it doesn't > change the fact that a stack-overflow is a problem for the end-user and > we should try to avoid causing such things. > > IOW, Dmitry's overflow-handling is good because it makes the failure > a bit cleaner, but it's still a failure that we should strive to avoid. Actually, we are in violent agreement. The point I was making is that given that we want to check for stack overflow, we don't need 2 such checks. I didn't mean at all to say that we should be less careful about avoiding stack overflows.