X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject
	:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
	 q=dns; s=default; b=Q3FqzjqQcTreCUjt5mDRP66L7glIzBYGkK/zrk7htYz
	9/nrkbtKqk82yv9DNqwWKvxG6AYeZ3G7LnD/xvo7U6niDKCR3Zahx2a2MRgetPgc
	Chd7M+eEvw8gwxKtNoXXqJLL6Kp1XYj5mkVkhKj3XeGKxhJMhPe8OzrePDDRW+eI
	=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject
	:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
	 s=default; bh=g5TR/Ql8iXIblvGfjh4HQLUpgVs=; b=jhxer7Q/vPcxVOWVk
	bZg7DwD07QML6aGlo9+2XWefwrXDs2bFkOFi0+dbf4yGZU8Odb71G892wDZMEDyD
	ldfVLjAYQYCmvIismNroY0D4/k3DIfeweEZ9p4q3dxWk/e5pPV2vRPXS2PZ1YKvZ
	wTy6C/5oXYffCLJAi0yzhmr48w=
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-4.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_NO,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_NEUTRAL autolearn=ham version=3.3.2
Message-ID: <521204EA.6020607@cs.utoronto.ca>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 07:43:38 -0400
From: Ryan Johnson <ryan DOT johnson AT cs DOT utoronto DOT ca>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Stack size on 64-bit Cygwin
References: <520E905A DOT 409 AT cornell DOT edu> <20130819093242 DOT GB18757 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <5211F83A DOT 30901 AT cs DOT utoronto DOT ca> <5211FBB6 DOT 6070108 AT cs DOT utoronto DOT ca> <20130819113919 DOT GA29385 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de>
In-Reply-To: <20130819113919.GA29385@calimero.vinschen.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 19/08/2013 7:39 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Aug 19 07:04, Ryan Johnson wrote:
>> On 19/08/2013 6:49 AM, Ryan Johnson wrote:
>>> One thing I don't understand, though: shouldn't a stack overflow
>>> normally manifest as a seg fault when trying to access the invalid
>>> addresses, rather than silent memory corruption?
> That would be helpful.
>
>>> However, /proc/pid/maps for emacs shows:
>>>> 00010000-00020000 rw-s 00000000 0000:0000 0
>>>> [win heap 1 default shared]
>>>> 00020000-00030000 rw-s 00000000 0000:0000 0 [win heap 2 default shared]
>>>> 00030000-001E4000 ===p 00000000 0000:0000 0 [stack (tid 4896)]
>>>> 001E4000-001E6000 rw-g 001B4000 0000:0000 0 [stack (tid 4896)]
>>>> 001E6000-00230000 rw-p 001B6000 0000:0000 0 [stack (tid 4896)]
>>> GDB reports that thread 4896 is the main thread... so I guess
>>> Windows doesn't reserve a red zone around its stack, but instead
>>> chooses to place the main thread stack right next to the
>>> fully-mapped global shared heap to maximize the potential for Fun?
> Right.  I have no idea what the two shared mem regions preceeding the
> stack are good for, though.
>
>
>> Some googling turns up
>> http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.java.openjdk.hotspot.runtime.devel/7706
>>> Windows only uses reserved but only partially committed memory for its stacks. In order to detect when to
>>> commit more stack, it installs  a one-shot guard page (btw the same type of guard page that is used for the
>>> hotspot yellow and red zone) right at the edge of the currently commited stack zone. When a thread accesses
>>> this guard page an exception is thrown which Windows catches internally, commits more stack and
>>> re-establishes the one-shot guard page at the new edge of the commited zone. When Windows detects such an
>>> exception inside the _last 4 pages_ of a stack (I couldn't find any documentation for that on MSDN, I found
>>> this value from manually testing on several Windows machines with 4k stack pages) it throws a STACK_OVERFLOW_EXCEPTION.
>> So maybe emacs just had the incredibly bad luck to alloca() a large
>> buffer right at end-of-stack and then somehow managed to skip over
>> the 4 guard pages when accessing it?
> That's unlikely since alloca is designed to probe the stack in 4K
> steps.  And STATUS_STACK_OVERFLOW is translated to a SEGV by Cygwin's
> exception handler.
... and yet somehow emacs managed to get around that protection 
(unintentially), leading to all that fun over the last week. What went 
wrong?

Ryan


--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple