[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: valid_pointer_p
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: valid_pointer_p |
Date: |
Sun, 06 Aug 2006 06:29:11 +0300 |
> Cc: address@hidden
> From: address@hidden (Kim F. Storm)
> Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2006 00:11:30 +0200
>
> > Btw, you always try to validate a 16-byte region starting at the
> > address P, which might give a false positive if the object is actually
> > smaller and happens to be at the end of an allocated page which is
> > followed by a page that we cannot access. Am I missing something?
>
> I validate a 16 area since the pointer is typically something
> "vector-like" where the code that access/print that object will look
> at data following the immedate byte/word that the pointer addresses.
Well, I figured that much. But we do know the length of each object,
so we could validate exactly what is needed, right? Just add another
argument to valid_pointer_p that tells it how many bytes to validate.
- Re: valid_pointer_p, Eli Zaretskii, 2006/08/05
- Re: valid_pointer_p, Eli Zaretskii, 2006/08/05
- Re: valid_pointer_p, Kim F. Storm, 2006/08/05
- Re: valid_pointer_p,
Eli Zaretskii <=
- Re: valid_pointer_p, Kim F. Storm, 2006/08/11
- Re: valid_pointer_p, Eli Zaretskii, 2006/08/12
- Re: valid_pointer_p, Andreas Schwab, 2006/08/12
- Re: valid_pointer_p, Eli Zaretskii, 2006/08/12
- Re: valid_pointer_p, Kim F. Storm, 2006/08/12
- Re: valid_pointer_p, Eli Zaretskii, 2006/08/12