[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [MiNT] Invalid S?_MAGIC
On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 20:51:01 , "Jean-François Lemaire" <jflemaire@skynet.be> wrote:
> On Monday 10 Oct 2011 20:28:14 Peter Slegg wrote:
> > On Sun, 2 Oct 2011 18:57:39 , Peter Persson <pep.fishmoose@gmail.com> wro
> te:
> > > 2 okt 2011 kl. 18:53 skrev Peter Slegg:
> > > > It lasted until I started Texel. See the screenshot.
> > >
> > > Yes. And I have the impression that you misinterpret that dialog as "the
> > > problem is within Thing". Now, Texel is an ASH application and most
> > > likely originally designed for MagiC. I own several ASH applications and
> > > they either have inherent problems with memory protection OR have their
> > > executable flags set wrong by default.
>
> > If MP is protecting memory, how is it that Texel or any app doing somethi
> ng
> > it shouldn't, causes Thing to be killed ?
>
> If Texel is passing a privately allocated buffer (therefore one that can't
> be
> shared in any way) to Thing to read, Thing violates that privately allocate
> d
> memory by trying to read it. Texel is the one in error by not following san
> e
> coding practices, but Thing is the one to suffer the consequences. Texel is
>
> *not* trying to access memory that doesn't belong to it or hasn't been
> allocated as global. Thing is.
>
> > Surely, the app that violated MP should be halted ?
>
> That's what happened. Thing violated Texel's privately allocated memory by
>
> trying to read it and was rightly killed. It's Texel's own damn fault, but
>
> hey.
>
> > Better still it
> > should be paused and the user asked if it is ok to allow the access.
>
> I don't know if this would be practical. I know Thing 1.29 is able to warn
>
> that some memory passed to it wasn't properly allocated (or something to th
> at
> effect; the warnings are in German, which I don't understand).
>
> > Or is Texel accessing some shared area and making a mess of it ?
>
> See above.
>
> Cheers,
> JFL
Many thanks for the explanation. It all makes sense now.
Regards,
Peter