| |||||||||||||
Linux 2.6.30 exploit postedLinux 2.6.30 exploit postedPosted Jul 17, 2009 16:05 UTC (Fri) by forthy (guest, #1525)In reply to: Linux 2.6.30 exploit posted by trasz Parent article: Linux 2.6.30 exploit posted
The behavior of dereferencing a null pointer (or any other invalid pointer) is undefined (Page 79 of the ISO/IEC 9899:1999 draft). This doesn't mean "crash" - undefined means undefined, you only can know if you define it (and then the compiler has to ensure that the implementation- The dereferencing worked, so it can't be the null pointer. This is the same rubbish argument that (x+n >= x)=true, because x+n didn't fail, and overflows are undefined by the C99 standard (but not by the execution model used on GCC's targets, which all use two's complement circular number spaces!).
(Log in to post comments)
|
|||||||||||||