From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/2647 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: pierre Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: dladdr() Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 15:59:46 +0100 Message-ID: <1358866786.2172.242.camel@6-core> References: <20130116125119.GA27914@port70.net> <50F6B818.1070807@gmail.com> <20130116164943.GD20323@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <50F6E698.3070604@gmail.com> <20130121020335.GO20323@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <1358751500.2196.20.camel@6-core> <20130121183523.GP20323@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <1358836066.2172.45.camel@6-core> <20130122130730.GB10600@port70.net> <1358862044.2172.216.camel@6-core> <20130122135151.GQ20323@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1358866786 16189 80.91.229.3 (22 Jan 2013 14:59:46 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 14:59:46 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-2648-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Tue Jan 22 16:00:05 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1TxfKW-0000SK-NW for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Tue, 22 Jan 2013 16:00:04 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 23955 invoked by uid 550); 22 Jan 2013 14:59:47 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Original-Received: (qmail 23947 invoked from network); 22 Jan 2013 14:59:46 -0000 Original-Reply-To: pierre@silentlife.com In-Reply-To: <20130122135151.GQ20323@brightrain.aerifal.cx> X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.3-0ubuntu6 Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:2647 Archived-At: Rich, > in the event the stack has been smashed, > following the stack frames is likely > (almost certain) to lead you to [bad] > destinations [...] that might not even > be valid That's precisely what I wrote in that email that nobody seems to have read. And I added, just in case it could help, that dladdr should not crash when trying to lookup invalid addresses. > there won't be frame pointers to help you > follow the stack frames out of libc functions For mere mortals, knowing that it's in libc is enough, as they then will check what junk was given to libc (and then will write a workaround if they feel that libc is buggy). For those with a stronger motivation, helping to strengthen a decent libc makes a lot more sense. I have no other motivation when I invest some of my time here. Pierre.