On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 at 16:10, Jonny Grant <jg@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On 25/03/2019 15:47, Andrew Haley wrote: > > On 3/25/19 2:01 PM, Florian Weimer wrote: > >> * Xi Ruoyao: > >> > >>> On 2019-03-25 13:06 +0000, Jonny Grant wrote: > >>>> > >>>> I built & ran with the Sanitizer, it seems it's also stack overflow > >>>> within the operator new() > >>>> > >>>> I had thoughts GCC would generate code that monitored the stack size and > >>>> aborted with a clear message when the stack size was exceeded. Looked > >>>> online, and it doesn't seem to be the case. > >>> > >>> Impossible. We can't distinguish "stack overflow" with other segmentation > >>> faults. > >> > >> I think “impossible” is too strong. > > > > It is. We do it with stack banging and a few guard pages in the HotSpot JVM. > > The problem is that recovering well enough to throw an exception requires > > some quite hairy non-portable code. > > Sounds good! > > I had expected that GCC (eg on x86) generated code just kept track of > the base and max SP register, and so would easily be able to call > abort() and printf "Stack %zu limit reached - Abort\n". To do that it would also need to keep track of the per-thread stack limit.
