> So we're designing for lala land where any and all silly systems exist are we?
Well, this whole thread is an exercise in silly design. Unless I’ve missed it the author has yet to acknowledge better approaches like using address sanitizer.
Cheers,
Jeremy
So we're designing for lala land where any and all silly systems exist are we? Just define a minimum based on real world standards which as far as I'm aware is 512 minimum which is reasonable enough for a `MIN_PAGE_SIZE 512` macro and certainly reasonable for a `MAX_INVALID_ADDRESS ((void*)512)` macro
On Thursday, 31 July 2025 07:35:31 Pacific Daylight Time zxuiji wrote:
> Then the answer to the potential null+-1 being valid is simple, mandate in
> the next standard that the 0+-PAGE_SIZE be premapped as sealed no rwx
> pages. That resolves the problem completely. They don't need to have
> anything mapped to them, just that they be mapped as invalid.
There's no PAGE_SIZE in the standard. Nor in POSIX, for that matter. POSIX
only has a runtime requirement for sysconf(_SC_PAGESIZE), with no required
minimum.
Without a minimum, there could hypothetically be a system with a page size of
1, which means the change you're proposing is useless.
--
Thiago Macieira - thiago (AT) macieira.info - thiago (AT) kde.org
Principal Engineer - Intel Platform & System Engineering
Std-Proposals mailing list
Std-Proposals@lists.isocpp.org
https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals