From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: mike stump <mrs@windriver.com>
To: fw@deneb.enyo.de
Cc: eager@mvista.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org, jsm28@cam.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Buffer Overflow Attacks
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 16:39:00 -0000
Message-id: <200111010020.QAA24162@kankakee.wrs.com>
X-SW-Source: 2001-10/msg01628.html

> To: mike stump <mrs@windriver.com>
> Cc: eager@mvista.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org, jsm28@cam.ac.uk
> From: Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>
> Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 19:23:54 +0100

> So I have to retract my original claim that it was impossible to do
> buffer overflow checks in such cases.  After all, a pointer in
> C-speak (or "address", as in "address-of operator") is not very
> similar to a machine address.

Off Topic: A pointer in C speak is exactly like a machine address.
Please show us C code that shows a difference.  comp.lang.c is a
better place for these types of comments.