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 | 20 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 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
| From | Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-25 07:16 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <20161025071658.3caf8eb7@maxa-pc.cpe.bvcom.net> |
| In reply to | #95254 |
On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 12:49:04 +0800 "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote: > On 10/24/2016 4:35 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > > The first is that if you free memory as soon as you can, your > > program may be able to handle larger data sets.... > > > The second reason is that programs have a habit of becoming part of > > larger programs. A program that responds to a network request by > > performing some computation, may one day become part a loop that > > endlessly responds to such requests.... > > These are indeed two strongest reasons to carefully manage malloc() > memory in the program. > What are reasons not to call free? -- press any key to continue or any other to quit
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-25 22:30 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <nunq91$c2l$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #95261 |
On 10/25/2016 1:16 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: > > What are reasons not to call free? Testing operating system's garbage collector? ;) -- @~@ Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch! Live long and prosper!! / v \ Simplicity is Beauty! /( _ )\ May the Force and farces be with you! ^ ^ (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10) Linux 2.6.39.3 不借貸! 不詐騙! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 請考慮綜援 (CSSA): http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-23 15:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <nujeve$qsr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #95194 |
On 10/23/2016 11:20 AM, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote: > > My old school C programming told me to always clean up malloc() with > corresponding calls to free() when my program exited. > > Is it safe to assume that VC++ in Visual Studio 2013 would always free > all memory allocated by a C program, that I don't need to free them myself? > > Or is it actually the function of Window$ the OS? Well, IMO, you need to free what you allocated in your own program. Think of a factory function that allocates new instances of objects. If you call that factory a lot of times, perhaps in event driven loop, without trying to clean up after yourself wrt freeing memory that has gone out of reference. Well, your memory usage will blow up, and allocating another object will fail... So, it does not matter if the OS frees memory that you use, but were to careless to clean up, during long runs. Try allocating objects in a loop without freeing anything... You will crash! ;^o
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-25 12:50 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <numo9b$3js$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #95213 |
On 10/24/2016 6:52 AM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > So, it does not matter if the OS frees memory that you use, but were to > careless to clean up, during long runs. Try allocating objects in a loop > without freeing anything... You will crash! Is there an OS that detects *abnormal* memory requests like a firewall? -- @~@ Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch! Live long and prosper!! / v \ Simplicity is Beauty! /( _ )\ May the Force and farces be with you! ^ ^ (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10) Linux 2.6.39.3 不借貸! 不詐騙! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 請考慮綜援 (CSSA): http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-25 07:18 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <20161025071804.3dd3d547@maxa-pc.cpe.bvcom.net> |
| In reply to | #95255 |
On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 12:50:06 +0800 "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote: > On 10/24/2016 6:52 AM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > > So, it does not matter if the OS frees memory that you use, but > > were to careless to clean up, during long runs. Try allocating > > objects in a loop without freeing anything... You will crash! > > Is there an OS that detects *abnormal* memory requests like a > firewall? > Abnormal? What are these? -- press any key to continue or any other to quit
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-25 22:28 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <nunq5m$c2l$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #95262 |
On 10/25/2016 1:18 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: >> Is there an OS that detects *abnormal* memory requests like a >> firewall? > > Abnormal? What are these? Malicious attempts to bust the OS, e.g., stack overflow, buffer under-run... kind of things? Well, I am no expert in this area. -- @~@ Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch! Live long and prosper!! / v \ Simplicity is Beauty! /( _ )\ May the Force and farces be with you! ^ ^ (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10) Linux 2.6.39.3 不借貸! 不詐騙! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 請考慮綜援 (CSSA): http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-25 16:48 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <20161025164837.5e8cb175@maxa-pc.cpe.bvcom.net> |
| In reply to | #95273 |
On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 22:28:28 +0800 "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote: > On 10/25/2016 1:18 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: > >> Is there an OS that detects *abnormal* memory requests like a > >> firewall? > > > > Abnormal? What are these? > > Malicious attempts to bust the OS, e.g., stack overflow, buffer > under-run... kind of things? Well, I am no expert in this area. > Bugs in user programs shouldn't bust generic OS normally. That is Unices and Windows. -- press any key to continue or any other to quit
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-25 23:25 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <nuntgb$omo$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #95279 |
On 10/25/2016 10:48 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: >> Malicious attempts to bust the OS, e.g., stack overflow, buffer >> under-run... kind of things? Well, I am no expert in this area. >> > Bugs in user programs shouldn't bust generic OS normally. That is > Unices and Windows. > Then how do those malwares and viruses attack the OS, if not attacking the stack and memory? -- @~@ Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch! Live long and prosper!! / v \ Simplicity is Beauty! /( _ )\ May the Force and farces be with you! ^ ^ (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10) Linux 2.6.39.3 不借貸! 不詐騙! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 請考慮綜援 (CSSA): http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-25 17:35 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <20161025173559.2b2c3859@maxa-pc.cpe.bvcom.net> |
| In reply to | #95288 |
On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 23:25:21 +0800 "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote: > On 10/25/2016 10:48 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: > >> Malicious attempts to bust the OS, e.g., stack overflow, buffer > >> under-run... kind of things? Well, I am no expert in this area. > >> > > Bugs in user programs shouldn't bust generic OS normally. That is > > Unices and Windows. > > > > Then how do those malwares and viruses attack the OS, if not > attacking the stack and memory? > Bugs exists in OS, too, but typical attack on Unix is to overtake process which runs with root privileges. -- press any key to continue or any other to quit
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-25 23:50 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <nunuv4$uds$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #95289 |
On 10/25/2016 11:35 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: > > Bugs exists in OS, too, but typical attack on Unix is to overtake > process which runs with root privileges. What about Windows, the more popular platform? -- @~@ Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch! Live long and prosper!! / v \ Simplicity is Beauty! /( _ )\ May the Force and farces be with you! ^ ^ (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10) Linux 2.6.39.3 不借貸! 不詐騙! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 請考慮綜援 (CSSA): http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-25 18:45 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <20161025184504.3117e8f5@maxa-pc.cpe.bvcom.net> |
| In reply to | #95290 |
On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 23:50:18 +0800 "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote: > On 10/25/2016 11:35 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: > > > > Bugs exists in OS, too, but typical attack on Unix is to overtake > > process which runs with root privileges. > > What about Windows, the more popular platform? > Well, on Windows there a n unknown attack vectors. -- press any key to continue or any other to quit
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-26 01:59 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <nuo6gk$s35$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #95298 |
On 10/26/2016 12:45 AM, Melzzzzz wrote: >> >> What about Windows, the more popular platform? > > Well, on Windows there a n unknown attack vectors. That's why *BIG* corporations are using Active Directory or domain to lock down their PCs? Well, it's going off-topic. :) -- @~@ Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch! Live long and prosper!! / v \ Simplicity is Beauty! /( _ )\ May the Force and farces be with you! ^ ^ (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10) Linux 2.6.39.3 不借貸! 不詐騙! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 請考慮綜援 (CSSA): http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-31 12:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ql3f1c5ca4lf9favjp3n6i4qaouhl8g79m@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #95290 |
On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 23:50:18 +0800, "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote: >On 10/25/2016 11:35 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: >> >> Bugs exists in OS, too, but typical attack on Unix is to overtake >> process which runs with root privileges. > >What about Windows, the more popular platform? The current Microsoft compiler uses stack checks in debug mode builds for spotting buffer overflows and stack overflows before you release your bugs upon the world in release mode builds. I'm not sure about other products or their tools. A good testing regime helps. With C++ or C# the managed code is defensive about what you can do with it and will often alert the programmer to his mistakes. The OS is getting better at defending itself. Use of signed code from software vendors, the system always asks for root permission before installing software are two examples. Windows no longer runs user accounts with root privilege by default. You have to go a little bit out of your way to install Windows insecurely. Vendors are learning to keep their applications restricted to least privilege. Elimination of the bad habit of needing Administrator access for their apps is a necessity. Plenty of examples of Linux admins granting root to processes in the past exist and have existed so it's not just a Windows thing. AD policies can lock down user accounts to prevent unauthorized installations of software that hasn't been checked by IT departments. In development cycles of your software you should keep to "good engineering practice", this means establishing paradigms for your programmers that includes proper use of malloc/free and testing for failure to adhere to the polices.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-01 15:32 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <nv9ged$t69$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #95463 |
On 1/11/2016 3:10 AM, Geoff wrote: > Windows no longer runs user accounts with root privilege by default. > You have to go a little bit out of your way to install Windows > insecurely. Vendors are learning to keep their applications restricted > to least privilege. Elimination of the bad habit of needing > Administrator access for their apps is a necessity. Plenty of examples > of Linux admins granting root to processes in the past exist and have > existed so it's not just a Windows thing. But is this privilege mode as strong as ring 0 of those Unix/Linux/FreeBSD OSes? Seems going a bit out of topic into OS design & IMPLEMENTATION ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-01 11:31 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nvaceo$l7o$3@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #95486 |
On 11/1/2016 3:32 AM, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote: > On 1/11/2016 3:10 AM, Geoff wrote: >> Windows no longer runs user accounts with root privilege by default. >> You have to go a little bit out of your way to install Windows >> insecurely. Vendors are learning to keep their applications restricted >> to least privilege. Elimination of the bad habit of needing >> Administrator access for their apps is a necessity. Plenty of examples >> of Linux admins granting root to processes in the past exist and have >> existed so it's not just a Windows thing. > > But is this privilege mode as strong as ring 0 of those > Unix/Linux/FreeBSD OSes? Seems going a bit out of topic into OS design & > IMPLEMENTATION ... > Privileges are not the same as rings. Rings are hardware rules on Intel chips (and some others) which prohibit or allow specific instructions to be executed. Privileges are software rules on what the user is allowed to do. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-03 19:28 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <nvf705$kqi$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #95517 |
On 1/11/2016 11:31 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > > Privileges are not the same as rings. Rings are hardware rules on Intel > chips (and some others) which prohibit or allow specific instructions to > be executed. Privileges are software rules on what the user is allowed > to do. If you had to pick the final barrier, what would you trust: hardware or software? :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-03 10:00 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nvffti$l0b$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #95640 |
On 11/3/2016 7:28 AM, 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? :) > It depends on the need. They are two different things, with two different applications. There is no overlap between the two. -- ================== 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 | 2016-11-03 23:25 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <nvfkrr$7ed$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #95645 |
On 3/11/2016 10:00 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 11/3/2016 7:28 AM, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote: >> If you had to pick the final barrier, what would you trust: hardware or >> software? :) >> > It depends on the need. They are two different things, with two > different applications. There is no overlap between the two. Come on. Pick one! JUST ONE! The final barrier, the last rock! :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-03 09:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnoa1wzh2u.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #95650 |
"Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> writes:
> On 3/11/2016 10:00 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> On 11/3/2016 7:28 AM, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
>>> If you had to pick the final barrier, what would you trust: hardware or
>>> software? :)
>>>
>> It depends on the need. They are two different things, with two
>> different applications. There is no overlap between the two.
>
> Come on. Pick one! JUST ONE! The final barrier, the last rock! :)
You've reminded others that this newsgroup is about C programming.
Let me remind you of the same thing.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-04 02:33 +0800 |
| Subject | [OT] |
| Message-ID | <nvfvs7$jgg$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #95658 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web