Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #95194 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-10-24 02:20 +0800 |
| Last post | 2016-11-04 02:31 +0800 |
| Articles | 18 on this page of 78 — 14 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
VC++ 2013, malloc() and free() "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 02:20 +0800
VC++ 2013, malloc() and free() asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2016-10-23 11:44 -0700
Re: VC++ 2013, malloc() and free() "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-10-25 12:46 +0800
Re: VC++ 2013, malloc() and free() Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-10-25 07:15 +0200
Re: VC++ 2013, malloc() and free() supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-10-25 07:15 -0700
Re: VC++ 2013, malloc() and free() Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-10-25 16:18 +0200
Re: VC++ 2013, malloc() and free() supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-10-25 07:32 -0700
Re: VC++ 2013, malloc() and free() Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-10-25 16:55 +0200
Re: VC++ 2013, malloc() and free() jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-10-25 08:07 -0700
Re: VC++ 2013, malloc() and free() "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-10-24 22:30 -0700
Re: VC++ 2013, malloc() and free() Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-10-25 07:46 +0200
Re: VC++ 2013, malloc() and free() "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-10-25 17:54 -0700
Re: VC++ 2013, malloc() and free() "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-10-25 17:55 -0700
Re: VC++ 2013, malloc() and free() "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-10-25 22:32 +0800
Re: VC++ 2013, malloc() and free() Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-10-25 16:46 +0200
Re: VC++ 2013, malloc() and free() "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-10-25 23:24 +0800
Re: VC++ 2013, malloc() and free() "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-10-25 23:52 +0800
Re: VC++ 2013, malloc() and free() supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-10-25 08:01 -0700
Re: VC++ 2013, malloc() and free() Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-10-25 17:23 +0200
Re: VC++ 2013, malloc() and free() supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-10-25 09:09 -0700
Re: VC++ 2013, malloc() and free() Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-25 09:29 -0700
Re: VC++ 2013, malloc() and free() Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-10-25 18:51 +0200
Re: VC++ 2013, malloc() and free() raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-10-27 19:54 +0000
Re: VC++ 2013, malloc() and free() supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-10-27 15:06 -0700
Re: VC++ 2013, malloc() and free() Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-27 17:06 -0700
Re: VC++ 2013, malloc() and free() supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-10-28 06:47 -0700
Re: VC++ 2013, malloc() and free() "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-10-29 23:16 +0800
Re: VC++ 2013, malloc() and free() supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-10-29 09:35 -0700
Re: VC++ 2013, malloc() and free() "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-10-29 12:51 -0400
Re: VC++ 2013, malloc() and free() supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-10-29 14:26 -0700
Re: VC++ 2013, malloc() and free() jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-10-29 15:27 -0700
Re: VC++ 2013, malloc() and free() supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-10-29 17:11 -0700
Re: VC++ 2013, malloc() and free() Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2016-10-31 13:01 -0700
Re: VC++ 2013, malloc() and free() Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-10-31 16:35 -0400
Re: VC++ 2013, malloc() and free() "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-01 15:31 +0800
Re: VC++ 2013, malloc() and free() Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-01 11:28 -0400
Re: VC++ 2013, malloc() and free() Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2016-10-31 12:11 -0700
Re: VC++ 2013, malloc() and free() supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-10-31 13:08 -0700
Re: VC++ 2013, malloc() and free() Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-10-23 21:35 +0100
Re: VC++ 2013, malloc() and free() "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-10-25 12:49 +0800
Re: VC++ 2013, malloc() and free() Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-10-25 07:16 +0200
Re: VC++ 2013, malloc() and free() "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-10-25 22:30 +0800
Re: VC++ 2013, malloc() and free() "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-10-23 15:52 -0700
Re: VC++ 2013, malloc() and free() "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-10-25 12:50 +0800
Re: VC++ 2013, malloc() and free() Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-10-25 07:18 +0200
Re: VC++ 2013, malloc() and free() "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-10-25 22:28 +0800
Re: VC++ 2013, malloc() and free() Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-10-25 16:48 +0200
Re: VC++ 2013, malloc() and free() "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-10-25 23:25 +0800
Re: VC++ 2013, malloc() and free() Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-10-25 17:35 +0200
Re: VC++ 2013, malloc() and free() "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-10-25 23:50 +0800
Re: VC++ 2013, malloc() and free() Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-10-25 18:45 +0200
Re: VC++ 2013, malloc() and free() "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-10-26 01:59 +0800
Re: VC++ 2013, malloc() and free() Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2016-10-31 12:10 -0700
Re: VC++ 2013, malloc() and free() "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-01 15:32 +0800
Re: VC++ 2013, malloc() and free() Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-01 11:31 -0400
Re: VC++ 2013, malloc() and free() "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-03 19:28 +0800
Re: VC++ 2013, malloc() and free() Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-03 10:00 -0400
Re: VC++ 2013, malloc() and free() "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-03 23:25 +0800
Re: VC++ 2013, malloc() and free() Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-03 09:03 -0700
[OT] "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-04 02:33 +0800
Re: [OT] Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-03 12:26 -0700
Re: [OT] "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-04 12:05 +0800
Re: [OT] luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-11-03 21:52 -0700
Re: [OT] "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-04 21:59 +0800
Re: [OT] Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-04 08:45 -0700
Re: [OT] James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-04 11:49 -0400
Re: [OT] "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-05 00:33 +0800
Re: [OT] Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-04 09:56 -0700
Re: [OT] "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-05 01:40 +0800
Re: [OT] "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-05 01:42 +0800
Re: [OT] Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-04 11:52 -0700
Re: [OT] "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-05 18:13 +0800
Re: [OT] Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-05 13:19 -0700
Re: [OT] "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-06 16:00 +0800
Re: VC++ 2013, malloc() and free() Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-03 20:16 -0400
Re: VC++ 2013, malloc() and free() "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-05 00:34 +0800
Re: VC++ 2013, malloc() and free() supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-03 08:54 -0700
Re: VC++ 2013, malloc() and free() "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-04 02:31 +0800
Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-03 12:26 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] |
| Message-ID | <lny410xt49.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #95675 |
"Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> writes:
> On 4/11/2016 12:03 AM, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> You've reminded others that this newsgroup is about C programming.
>> Let me remind you of the same thing.
>
> You were right about this. I might start a new thread later.
If it's about C, great. If it isn't, please don't.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-04 12:05 +0800 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] |
| Message-ID | <nvh1cv$2lq$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #95687 |
On 4/11/2016 3:26 AM, Keith Thompson wrote: >> >> You were right about this. I might start a new thread later. > > If it's about C, great. If it isn't, please don't. Is it bad to talk about algorithms and stuff what C could control and intervene in a programming language newsgroup? How do you draw the lines? Um... is there really a subjective algorithm to define that? :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-03 21:52 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] |
| Message-ID | <926ca13e-b561-44f6-8385-705eaef5ba00@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #95726 |
On Thursday, November 3, 2016 at 11:05:21 PM UTC-5, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote: > On 4/11/2016 3:26 AM, Keith Thompson wrote: > >> > >> You were right about this. I might start a new thread later. > > > > If it's about C, great. If it isn't, please don't. > > Is it bad to talk about algorithms and stuff what C could control and > intervene in a programming language newsgroup? How do you draw the lines? > > Um... is there really a subjective algorithm to define that? :) If it's not specific to C, then comp.programming is a more appropriate group.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-04 21:59 +0800 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] |
| Message-ID | <nvi46m$9ep$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #95727 |
On 4/11/2016 12:52 PM, luser droog wrote: > > If it's not specific to C, then comp.programming > is a more appropriate group. Is this *line* official and format? :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-04 08:45 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] |
| Message-ID | <lnd1ibxn8o.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #95744 |
"Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> writes:
> On 4/11/2016 12:52 PM, luser droog wrote:
>>
>> If it's not specific to C, then comp.programming
>> is a more appropriate group.
>
> Is this *line* official and format? :)
There is no official charter for comp.lang.c, and there is no
mechanism for enforcing topicality other than peer pressure.
The name of the newsgroup should be enough to tell you that the
group is for discussing the C programming language.
Some newsgroups have been effectively destroyed by massive
off-topic posts. Some of us are trying to keep that from happening
to comp.lang.c.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-04 11:49 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] |
| Message-ID | <nviam2$2ei$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #95744 |
On 11/04/2016 09:59 AM, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote: > On 4/11/2016 12:52 PM, luser droog wrote: >> >> If it's not specific to C, then comp.programming >> is a more appropriate group. > > Is this *line* official and format? :) Oh no - nothing like that. comp.lang.c was created long before creation of a newsgroup charter became a standard part of the process of creating a new group. It's not a moderated group, so no one's going to stop you if you wish to discuss something off-topic, such as volleyball. It's simply a fact of life that you'll find people more interested in a topic, and more competent to discuss it, if you discuss it in the more appropriate place.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-05 00:33 +0800 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] |
| Message-ID | <nvid7n$caj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #95756 |
On 4/11/2016 11:49 PM, James Kuyper wrote: > Oh no - nothing like that. comp.lang.c was created long before creation > of a newsgroup charter became a standard part of the process of creating > a new group. It's not a moderated group, so no one's going to stop you > if you wish to discuss something off-topic, such as volleyball. Volleyball is no more interesting than a female C programmer. :) But I am NOT going that way off-topic. I am talking about things, libraries, devices.... that could be addressed by C programming language. For example, could we talk about Raspberry Pi here? > It's simply a fact of life that you'll find people more interested in a > topic, and more competent to discuss it, if you discuss it in the more > appropriate place. I think comp.programming is the parent node of comp.lang.c!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-04 09:56 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] |
| Message-ID | <lny40zw5e1.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #95762 |
"Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> writes:
[...]
> But I am NOT going that way off-topic. I am talking about things,
> libraries, devices.... that could be addressed by C programming
> language. For example, could we talk about Raspberry Pi here?
5 minutes after this post, you posted a followup on this thread about
dreams, ghosts, witchcraft, and Jesus. You ask about topicality,
but you show no sign of caring about it.
We could talk about C programming for the Raspberry Pi.
The Raspberry Pi itself is not the C programming language, so
discussions not involving C would be off-topic. Is that not obvious?
[...]
> I think comp.programming is the parent node of comp.lang.c!
It isn't.
If it's not about the C programming language, it doesn't belong here.
And if you continue doing what you're doing, you will join the other
trolls in my killfile. (I recently sent you an e-mail message; please
read it.)
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-05 01:40 +0800 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] |
| Message-ID | <nvih5g$rie$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #95767 |
On 5/11/2016 12:56 AM, Keith Thompson wrote: > We could talk about C programming for the Raspberry Pi. > The Raspberry Pi itself is not the C programming language, so > discussions not involving C would be off-topic. Is that not obvious? You can write C programs to make use of Raspberry Pi. But if you and other guardians of this newsgroup wanted to see only language-specific topics, I have nothing more to add. > It isn't. > > If it's not about the C programming language, it doesn't belong here. > And if you continue doing what you're doing, you will join the other > trolls in my killfile. (I recently sent you an e-mail message; please > read it.) I want to remind you to separate my off-topic posts from on-topic posts. I don't mind talking in both context. But some may want a pure, *HOLY* place just for C programming language. :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-05 01:42 +0800 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] |
| Message-ID | <nvih8o$rie$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #95767 |
BTW, I am NOT feeding the trolls by replying them. I am trying to bring them back. I understood your and others' concerns.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-04 11:52 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] |
| Message-ID | <lnmvhfw00t.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #95778 |
"Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> writes:
> BTW, I am NOT feeding the trolls by replying them. I am trying to bring
> them back. I understood your and others' concerns.
No, you are feeding them. By replying in public, you encourage them to
continue posting. You're new here, and I've been doing this for a very
long time. Please consider the possibility that I know what I'm talking
about.
From another post:
> I want to remind you to separate my off-topic posts from on-topic
> posts. I don't mind talking in both context.
Request denied. Please stop the off-topic posts.
The fact that I'm continuing to ask you indicates that, unlike certain
other posters, I still have *some* hope that you will listen and change
your behavior. That hope is just about to run out.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-05 18:13 +0800 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] |
| Message-ID | <nvkbc8$usq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #95786 |
On 5/11/2016 2:52 AM, Keith Thompson wrote: > No, you are feeding them. By replying in public, you encourage them to > continue posting. You're new here, and I've been doing this for a very > long time. Please consider the possibility that I know what I'm talking > about. > > Request denied. Please stop the off-topic posts. > > The fact that I'm continuing to ask you indicates that, unlike certain > other posters, I still have *some* hope that you will listen and change > your behavior. That hope is just about to run out. This is just a newsgroup, not a piece of holy land to fight for. I wanna remind you about it. :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-05 13:19 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] |
| Message-ID | <lntwblvfv4.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #95825 |
"Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> writes:
> On 5/11/2016 2:52 AM, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> No, you are feeding them. By replying in public, you encourage them to
>> continue posting. You're new here, and I've been doing this for a very
>> long time. Please consider the possibility that I know what I'm talking
>> about.
>>
>> Request denied. Please stop the off-topic posts.
>>
>> The fact that I'm continuing to ask you indicates that, unlike certain
>> other posters, I still have *some* hope that you will listen and change
>> your behavior. That hope is just about to run out.
>
> This is just a newsgroup, not a piece of holy land to fight for. I wanna
> remind you about it. :)
Yes, I know it's just a newsgroup. I have never said or implied
that there is anything "holy" about it. You are making a strawman
argument.
I see that you've posted an article asking about what's topical here.
I think the answer is already clear enough, but since you're asking,
I'll hold off on killfiling you for a day or two. But if you
continue posting on these off-topic threads, you will very quickly
land in my killfile along with the other trolls.
Do you have something to say about C? If so, this is the place
for it. So far, it seems that you don't, which makes me wonder
why you'd want to be here at all.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-06 16:00 +0800 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] |
| Message-ID | <nvmnt5$b8m$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #95852 |
On 6/11/2016 4:19 AM, Keith Thompson wrote: > > Do you have something to say about C? If so, this is the place > for it. So far, it seems that you don't, which makes me wonder > why you'd want to be here at all. > You need to have an objective. You don't write C because you want to write C. :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-03 20:16 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nvgk03$ur5$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #95650 |
On 11/3/2016 11:25 AM, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote: > On 3/11/2016 10:00 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> On 11/3/2016 7:28 AM, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote: >>> If you had to pick the final barrier, what would you trust: hardware or >>> software? :) >>> >> It depends on the need. They are two different things, with two >> different applications. There is no overlap between the two. > > Come on. Pick one! JUST ONE! The final barrier, the last rock! :) > Not without knowing the need. They are two different things, with two different applications. One will neither replace nor supersede the other. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-05 00:34 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <nvid9k$caj$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #95707 |
On 4/11/2016 8:16 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>> It depends on the need. They are two different things, with two >>> different applications. There is no overlap between the two. >> >> Come on. Pick one! JUST ONE! The final barrier, the last rock! :) >> > > Not without knowing the need. They are two different things, with two > different applications. One will neither replace nor supersede the other. Don't have time to learn about memory and execution protection in CPUs and operating systems. Later. :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | supercat@casperkitty.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-03 08:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3c2c28fb-c51b-44cf-b339-ae6de3f4060c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #95640 |
On Thursday, November 3, 2016 at 6:28:40 AM UTC-5, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote: > On 1/11/2016 11:31 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > > > > Privileges are not the same as rings. Rings are hardware rules on Intel > > chips (and some others) which prohibit or allow specific instructions to > > be executed. Privileges are software rules on what the user is allowed > > to do. > > If you had to pick the final barrier, what would you trust: hardware or > software? :) The hardware rings determines which operations can be performed directly with no further questions, much like the page table controls what memory locations can be accessed directly. In much the way that attempting to use a page which has been swapped out to disk will trigger the same hardware trap as using an invalid page, and a software handler will need to distinguish the conditions, the same situation will apply if code at a less-privileged ring tries to perform an operation that would require a more privileged one. A system might have even administrative-level processes run all non-kernel code at unprivileged rings and have a trap handler validate any pointers involved with operations requiring privilege before it allows such operations to proceed. Such an approach would be slower than letting "root" run user programs directly in a privileged ring, but would provide some protection against remote-code-execution exploits.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-04 02:31 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <nvfvpo$jgg$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #95656 |
On 3/11/2016 11:54 PM, supercat@casperkitty.com wrote: > The hardware rings determines which operations can be performed directly > with no further questions, much like the page table controls what memory > locations can be accessed directly. In much the way that attempting to > use a page which has been swapped out to disk will trigger the same > hardware trap as using an invalid page, and a software handler will need > to distinguish the conditions, the same situation will apply if code at > a less-privileged ring tries to perform an operation that would require > a more privileged one. A system might have even administrative-level > processes run all non-kernel code at unprivileged rings and have a trap > handler validate any pointers involved with operations requiring privilege > before it allows such operations to proceed. Such an approach would be > slower than letting "root" run user programs directly in a privileged ring, > but would provide some protection against remote-code-execution exploits. In short, there is no absolute barrier to defend?
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web