On 2013/09/05 09:22:12, Michael Starzinger wrote:
Looking OK from my end. I'll leave the final decision up to Cris.
Yes, the reason we used PAGE_GUARD is so that we would get an actionable
exception in crash reports. This allows us to filter crashes for
STATUS_GUARD_PAGE_VIOLATION and know with some degree of certainty that a
given
crash will have security relevance. Changing this to PAGE_NOACCESS would
mean we
will simply get a standard ACCESS_VIOLATION and will not have the additional
context that we are writing off the end (or before the beginning of a
guarded
segment).
That being said are their cases that you found where we are handling this
exception and it is not causing a crash? If so then I agree this is bad and
we
need to fix it. Otherwise I would ask that we keep these pages with the
current
protection so that we retain the additional context in crash reports.
Make sense?
https://codereview.chromium.org/23458022/
--
--
v8-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "v8-dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
