c++.dos - size with an array of char
-
noobi
(9/9)
Aug 29 2003
#include
- Jan Knepper (5/20) Aug 29 2003 Because that's exactly what you asked the program to do.
- KarL (14/34) Aug 31 2003 In addition, you are only using a small amount of stack for the array
- Heinz Saathoff (7/19) Sep 01 2003 I would assume a crash when main returns. Writing beyond the limit can
- KarL (4/23) Sep 01 2003 See sample:
#include <stdio.h> main() { char ar[9]; ar[10] ='T'; printf("%c",ar[10]); } Output > T Why I got "T" in output and not an error ?
Aug 29 2003
Because that's exactly what you asked the program to do. You created an array bounds violation. C does not care about that. It just means you are accessing memory that you have not declared. Jan noobi wrote:#include <stdio.h> main() { char ar[9]; ar[10] ='T'; printf("%c",ar[10]); } Output > T Why I got "T" in output and not an error ?
Aug 29 2003
In addition, you are only using a small amount of stack for the array and the stack grows upwards (or downwards depending on your point of view) for the character array and hasn't hit the "roof". Printf happens to be a varargs and therefore the array argument is on top of stack. if you include this: extern "C" unsigned __cdecl _stack = 32; // or some smaller number // which I haven't tried to see which causes failures You might get a crash. If you read the news lately, this is exactly the scenerio of what we called the buffer overflow. Your "buffer" of 9 character is "overflowed". Attacker can use these sort of programmer's flaw to do something nasty "Jan Knepper" <usenet digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:biov51$sl7$1 digitaldaemon.com...Because that's exactly what you asked the program to do. You created an array bounds violation. C does not care about that. It just means you are accessing memory that you have not declared. Jan noobi wrote:#include <stdio.h> main() { char ar[9]; ar[10] ='T'; printf("%c",ar[10]); } Output > T Why I got "T" in output and not an error ?
Aug 31 2003
KarL schrieb...n addition, you are only using a small amount of stack for the array and the stack grows upwards (or downwards depending on your point of view) for the character array and hasn't hit the "roof". Printf happens to be a varargs and therefore the array argument is on top of stack. if you include this: extern "C" unsigned __cdecl _stack = 32; // or some smaller number // which I haven't tried to see which causes failures You might get a crash.I would assume a crash when main returns. Writing beyond the limit can overwrite the return address for main. It doesn't do here because dm allocates 12 byte of stack space here (padding for dword alignment?). With optimization the array isn't allocated at all and 'T' is directly pushed as a argument to printf. - Heinz
Sep 01 2003
See sample: http://www.securiteam.com/securityreviews/5OP0B006UQ.html "Heinz Saathoff" <hsaat bre.ipnet.de> wrote in message news:MPG.19bd2bc5421c07909896d1 news.digitalmars.com...KarL schrieb...n addition, you are only using a small amount of stack for the array and the stack grows upwards (or downwards depending on your point of view) for the character array and hasn't hit the "roof". Printf happens to be a varargs and therefore the array argument is on top of stack. if you include this: extern "C" unsigned __cdecl _stack = 32; // or some smaller number // which I haven't tried to see which causes failures You might get a crash.I would assume a crash when main returns. Writing beyond the limit can overwrite the return address for main. It doesn't do here because dm allocates 12 byte of stack space here (padding for dword alignment?). With optimization the array isn't allocated at all and 'T' is directly pushed as a argument to printf. - Heinz
Sep 01 2003