Re: [MiNT] Safe stack overflow

[Jo Even Skarstein <joska@online.no>]

On Mon, 2014-02-24 at 18:49 +0100, Miro Kropáček wrote:

> Of course, since we don't have a VM, the stack pointer wouldn't fall
> into low addresses but it would definitely fall outside the process'
> TPA and emitted a memory violation.

Ok, you mean to put the stack at the very beginning of the TPA to
trigger a memory violation when the stack overflows? If so, that's an
interesting idea. You'll get stack checking for free. I believe MagiC!
use canaries, not only for the stack but for all Malloc'ed blocks, which
costs a little bit of performance.

Now, if someone (yes, you Vincent :) would add memory protection support
for the Firebee I would be very happy. I find myself using my Milan more
lately due to this. I tend to make a lot of stupid mistakes while
programming, so memory protection makes my life a lot easier.

Jo Even