Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?

Liste des GroupesRevenir à cl c  
Sujet : Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?
De : 643-408-1753 (at) *nospam* kylheku.com (Kaz Kylheku)
Groupes : comp.lang.c
Date : 01. Aug 2024, 21:39:04
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <20240801114615.906@kylheku.com>
References : 1
User-Agent : slrn/pre1.0.4-9 (Linux)
On 2024-08-01, Mark Summerfield <mark@qtrac.eu> wrote:
This program segfaults at the commented line:
>
#include <ctype.h>
#include <stdio.h>
>
void uppercase_ascii(char *s) {
    while (*s) {
        *s = toupper(*s); // SEGFAULT
        s++;
    }
}
>
int main() {
    char* text = "this is a test";

The "this is a test" object is a literal. It is part of the program's image.
When you try to change it, you're making your program self-modifying.

The ISO C language standard doesn't require implementations to support
self-modifying programs; the behavior is left undefined.

It could work in some documented, reliable way, in a given
implementation.

It's the same with any other constant in the program. Say you have
a malloc(1024) somewhere in the program. That 1024 number is encoded
into the program's image somhow, and in principle you could write code
to somehow get at that number and change it to 256. Long before you got
that far, you would be in undefined behavior territory.  If it worked,
it could have surprising effects. For instance, there could be another
call to malloc(1024) in the program and, surprisingly, *that* one also
changes to malloc(256).

A literal like "this is a test" is similar to that 1024, except
that it's very easy to get at it. The language defines it aws an object
with an address, and to get that address all we have to do is evaluate
that expression itself. A minimal piece of code that requests the
undefined consequences of modifying a string literal is as easy
as "a"[0] = 0.

Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
0x000055555555516e in uppercase_ascii (s=0x555555556004 "this is a test")
at inplace.c:6
6         *s = toupper(*s);

On Linux, the string literals of a C executable are located together
with the program text. They are interspersed among the machine
instructions which reference them. The program text is mapped
read-only, so an attempted modification is an access violation trapped
by the OS, turned into a SIGSEGV signal.

GCC uses to have a -fwritable-strings option, but it has been removed
for quite some time now.

--
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca

Date Sujet#  Auteur
1 Aug 24 * relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?98Mark Summerfield
1 Aug 24 +* Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?2Mark Summerfield
1 Aug 24 i`- Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?1Ben Bacarisse
1 Aug 24 +* Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?33Richard Harnden
1 Aug 24 i+- Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?1Mark Summerfield
1 Aug 24 i`* Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?31Bart
1 Aug 24 i `* Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?30Keith Thompson
1 Aug 24 i  +* Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?20Bart
1 Aug 24 i  i+- Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?1Keith Thompson
2 Aug 24 i  i+- Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?1James Kuyper
2 Aug 24 i  i+* Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?16Kaz Kylheku
2 Aug 24 i  ii`* Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?15Bart
2 Aug 24 i  ii +- Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?1Richard Damon
2 Aug 24 i  ii `* Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?13James Kuyper
2 Aug 24 i  ii  +- Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?1Bart
3 Aug 24 i  ii  +* Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?5Lawrence D'Oliveiro
3 Aug 24 i  ii  i`* Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?4Richard Damon
3 Aug 24 i  ii  i +- Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?1Joe Pfeiffer
4 Aug 24 i  ii  i +- Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?1Lawrence D'Oliveiro
12 Aug 24 i  ii  i `- Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?1Tim Rentsch
14 Aug 24 i  ii  `* Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?6Tim Rentsch
14 Aug 24 i  ii   +* Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?3Keith Thompson
16 Aug 24 i  ii   i`* Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?2Tim Rentsch
16 Aug 24 i  ii   i `- Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?1Keith Thompson
14 Aug 24 i  ii   `* Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?2James Kuyper
16 Aug 24 i  ii    `- Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?1Tim Rentsch
4 Aug 24 i  i`- Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?1Bonita Montero
12 Aug 24 i  `* Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?9Tim Rentsch
13 Aug 24 i   `* Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?8Vir Campestris
13 Aug 24 i    +* Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?3Keith Thompson
14 Aug 24 i    i+- Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?1Tim Rentsch
14 Aug 24 i    i`- Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?1David Brown
14 Aug 24 i    `* Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?4Tim Rentsch
14 Aug 24 i     `* Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?3Keith Thompson
14 Aug 24 i      `* Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?2Kaz Kylheku
14 Aug 24 i       `- Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?1Keith Thompson
1 Aug 24 +* No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?38Michael S
1 Aug 24 i`* Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?37David Brown
2 Aug 24 i `* Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?36candycanearter07
2 Aug 24 i  +* Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?34Keith Thompson
2 Aug 24 i  i+* Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?28Richard Harnden
2 Aug 24 i  ii+- Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?1James Kuyper
2 Aug 24 i  ii+* Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?24Keith Thompson
2 Aug 24 i  iii+* Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?5Richard Damon
2 Aug 24 i  iiii+* Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?3James Kuyper
2 Aug 24 i  iiiii`* Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?2Richard Damon
12 Aug 24 i  iiiii `- Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?1Tim Rentsch
12 Aug 24 i  iiii`- Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?1Tim Rentsch
2 Aug 24 i  iii+* Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?15Chris M. Thomasson
3 Aug 24 i  iiii`* Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?14Ben Bacarisse
3 Aug 24 i  iiii `* Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?13Chris M. Thomasson
5 Aug 24 i  iiii  `* Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?12Ben Bacarisse
5 Aug 24 i  iiii   `* Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?11Chris M. Thomasson
5 Aug 24 i  iiii    +- Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?1Chris M. Thomasson
5 Aug 24 i  iiii    `* Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?9Ben Bacarisse
5 Aug 24 i  iiii     `* Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?8Chris M. Thomasson
5 Aug 24 i  iiii      `* Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?7Ben Bacarisse
6 Aug 24 i  iiii       +* Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?5Chris M. Thomasson
6 Aug 24 i  iiii       i`* Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?4Ben Bacarisse
6 Aug 24 i  iiii       i `* Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?3Chris M. Thomasson
7 Aug 24 i  iiii       i  `* Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?2Ben Bacarisse
13 Aug 24 i  iiii       i   `- Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?1Chris M. Thomasson
6 Aug 24 i  iiii       `- Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?1Chris M. Thomasson
12 Aug 24 i  iii`* Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?3Tim Rentsch
12 Aug 24 i  iii `* Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?2Keith Thompson
3 Sep 24 i  iii  `- Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?1Tim Rentsch
25 Aug 24 i  ii`* Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?2dave thompson 2
25 Aug 24 i  ii `- Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?1Keith Thompson
12 Aug 24 i  i`* Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?5Tim Rentsch
12 Aug 24 i  i `* Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?4Keith Thompson
13 Aug 24 i  i  `* Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?3Tim Rentsch
13 Aug 24 i  i   `* Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?2David Brown
13 Aug 24 i  i    `- Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?1Keith Thompson
3 Aug 24 i  `- Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?1David Brown
1 Aug 24 +- Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?1James Kuyper
1 Aug 24 `* Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?23Kaz Kylheku
1 Aug 24  +* Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?20Bart
1 Aug 24  i+- Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?1Keith Thompson
1 Aug 24  i+- Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?1Ben Bacarisse
2 Aug 24  i+* Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?3Kaz Kylheku
2 Aug 24  ii+- Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?1Bart
12 Aug 24  ii`- Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?1Tim Rentsch
3 Aug 24  i`* Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?14David Brown
4 Aug 24  i +* Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?12Keith Thompson
4 Aug 24  i i+* Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?10Lawrence D'Oliveiro
4 Aug 24  i ii`* Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?9Keith Thompson
4 Aug 24  i ii +* Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?2Richard Damon
12 Aug 24  i ii i`- Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?1Tim Rentsch
5 Aug 24  i ii `* Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?6Lawrence D'Oliveiro
5 Aug 24  i ii  `* Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?5Keith Thompson
5 Aug 24  i ii   `* Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?4Lawrence D'Oliveiro
6 Aug 24  i ii    `* Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?3Keith Thompson
6 Aug 24  i ii     `* Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?2Bart
6 Aug 24  i ii      `- Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?1David Brown
4 Aug 24  i i`- Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?1David Brown
4 Aug 24  i `- Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?1Keith Thompson
1 Aug 24  +- Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?1Keith Thompson
14 Aug 24  `- Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?1Tim Rentsch

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal