Objects can be put on and removed only from the top of a stack. But what about reading and writing their values? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think process must be able to read from any part of the stack, since if only reading from the top was possible it would have to remove (and store somewhere) whole content of the stack above a variable it wants to examine. But in that case, how does the process know where exactly in the stack is a particular variable? I suspect it just holds a pointer to it, but where is that pointer stored?
Another thing - reading about stacks I often find phrases like "All memory allocated on the stack is known at compile time." Well, I probably misunderstand this, so please tell me where's the flaw in my logic:
Suppose a local variable is created when an if() statement is true, and isn't when it's false. Whether it's true will turn out at run time. So at compile time there's no way to know if it should be created, hence I wouldn't think memory for it is allocated at all, as it would be wasteful. Consequently, it isn't created/known at compile time.
At compile time, it's known how much space each type needs: An Integer, for instance, is 4 Bytes wide on 32 bit platforms, and a class with 2 Integers consumes 8 Bytes. Whether this space is allocated for a specific variable is not necessarily known (may depend on an if, as you stated).
When you invoke a method, all parameters and the return address are pushed onto the stack. To get one parameter, you walk up the stack up to its position, which is computed by the base pointer and the size of each parameter.
So it is not entirely true for this stack that you can access the top element only. It is, however, for the Stack data structure.
Related
why stack pointer is initialized to the maximum value?
I only knows that It is the tiny register which stores the last program request’s address in a stack. It is the particular kind of buffer that stores the information in the order of top-down. but can anyone explain me why initially it's having max value.
Without more detail on the actual microprocessor, there isn't a single exact answer; but in general, each architecture handles stack pointer initialization a bit differently. For example, the version of ARM used in many microprocessors initializes the stack pointer (also R13) from the vector table (the first entry). Other architectures either initialize the register to 0 or some other value; so it's not always all 1s as you mention in your question. If the hardware itself doesn't initialize the stack pointer so somewhere meaningful, some of the first instructions usually does. And usually this value is near or at the top of memory as you mention, the stack typically grows down from higher addresses to lower ones; so a value of all 1s or some other larger value might make sense depending on how memory is laid out and managed.
One thing also worth mentioning is that you say the stack stores the "last program request's address" which if I understand correctly is one of the things the stack stores. In more architectures, the stack can store much more than just the return address of a call but also local variables, saved context when a call is made or a context is swapped (either by an OS or by an exception/interrupt) and anything else the program might want to push onto it.
So the short answer is: it isn't always set to the maximum value but it's usually set to some high value as the stack will grow down to lower addresses as things like data and addresses are pushed on it.
I always have a question about how to calculate the stretch of the stack. For example, when I have more than 8 parameters in arm64, he actually uses the area of my previous function call stack. After BL enters the function, he uses SP to add back to get the parameters, which is equivalent to crossing a stack. How can he avoid polluting the previous stack in this case? Thank you for your answer
You are correct: the function arguments which do not fit in registers will be pushed onto the stack before calling your function. Therefore, they will be at addresses with positive offsets from SP on entry to your function, and I can see why you might be concerned that it is not safe to access this memory. However, this memory is in fact "yours".
The ARM Procedure Call Standard section 6.4.2 states "A callee is permitted to modify any stack space used for receiving parameter values from the caller". So, there is no need to worry. The caller is expecting you to access this memory, and even to modify it if you want, and nothing will break if you do.
I have just started learning rust, and it is my first proper look into a low level language (I do python, usually). Part of the tutorial explains that a string literal is stored on the stack, because it has a fixed (and known) size; it also explains that a non-initialised string is stored on the heap, so that its size can grow as necessary.
My understanding is that the stack is much faster than the heap. In the case of a string whose size is unknown, but I know it will not ever require more than n bytes, does it make sense to allocate space on the stack for the maximum size, instead of sticking it on the heap?
The purpose of this question is not to solve a problem, but to help me understand, so I would appreciate verbose and detailed answers!
The difference in performance between the stack and the heap comes due to the fact that objects in the heap may change size at run time, and they must then be reallocated somewhere else in the heap.
Now for the verbose part. Imagine you have an integer i32. This number will always be the same size, so any modifications made to it will occur in place. When it goes out of scope (it stops being needed in the program) it will either be deleted, or, a more efficient solution, it will be deleted along with the whole stack it belongs to.
Now you want to create a String. So you create it in the heap and give it a value. And then you modify it and add some characters to it. Now two things can happen.
There is free memory after the string, so the allocator uses this memory to write the new part.
There already is an object allocated in the memory right after the string, and of course, you don't want to overwrite it. So the allocator looks for the next free memory space with enough size to hold the new string and copies into it that string. Then deletes the old one, freeing that memory.
As you can see in the heap the number of operations to be made is incredibly higher than in the stack, so its performance will be lower.
Now, in your case, there are some methods specifically for memory reservation. String::reserve() and String::reserve_exact(). I would recommend you to look at the documentation for Rust always. Usually there already is a std method for what you want.
Ok, I asked the difference between Stackoverflow and bufferoverflow yesterday and almost getting voted down to oblivion and no new information.
So it got me thinking and I decided to rephrase my question in the hopes that I get reply which actually solves my issue.
So here goes nothing.
I am aware of four memory segments(correct me if I am wrong). The code, data, stack and heap. Now AFAIK the the code segment stores the code, while the data segment stores the data related to the program. What seriously confuses me is the purpose of the stack and the heap!
From what I have understood, when you run a function, all the related data to the function gets stored in the stack and when you recursively call a function inside a function, inside of a function... While the function is waiting on the output of the previous function, the function and its necessary data don't pop out of the stack. So you end up with a stack overflow. (Again please correct me if I am wrong)
Also I know what the heap is for. As I have read someplace, its for dynamically allocating data when a program is executing. But this raises more questions that solves my problems. What happens when I initially initialize my variables in the code.. Are they in the code segment or in the data segment or in the heap? Where do arrays get stored? Is it that after my code executes all that was in my heap gets erased? All in all, please tell me about heap in a more simplified manner than just, its for malloc and alloc because I am not sure I completely understand what those terms are!
I hope people when answering don't get lost in the technicalities and can keep the terms simple for a layman to understand (even if the concept to be described is't laymanish) and keep educating us with the technical terms as we go along. I also hope this is not too big a question, because I seriously think they could not be asked separately!
What is the stack for?
Every program is made up of functions / subroutines / whatever your language of choice calls them. Almost always, those functions have some local state. Even in a simple for loop, you need somewhere to keep track of the loop counter, right? That has to be stored in memory somewhere.
The thing about functions is that the other thing they almost always do is call other functions. Those other functions have their own local state - their local variables. You don't want your local variables to interfere with the locals in your caller. The other thing that has to happen is, when FunctionA calls FunctionB and then has to do something else, you want the local variables in FunctionA to still be there, and have their same values, when FunctionB is done.
Keeping track of these local variables is what the stack is for. Each function call is done by setting up what's called a stack frame. The stack frame typically includes the return address of the caller (for when the function is finished), the values for any method parameters, and storage for any local variables.
When a second function is called, then a new stack frame is created, pushed onto the top of the stack, and the call happens. The new function can happily work away on its stack frame. When that second function returns, its stack frame is popped (removed from the stack) and the caller's frame is back in place just like it was before.
So that's the stack. So what's the heap? It's got a similar use - a place to store data. However, there's often a need for data that lives longer than a single stack frame. It can't go on the stack, because when the function call returns, it's stack frame is cleaned up and boom - there goes your data. So you put it on the heap instead. The heap is a basically unstructured chunk of memory. You ask for x number of bytes, and you get it, and can then party on it. In C / C++, heap memory stays allocated until you explicitly deallocate. In garbage collected languages (Java/C#/Python/etc.) heap memory will be freed when the objects on it aren't used anymore.
To tackle your specific questions from above:
What's the different between a stack overflow and a buffer overflow?
They're both cases of running over a memory limit. A stack overflow is specific to the stack; you've written your code (recursion is a common, but not the only, cause) so that it has too many nested function calls, or you're storing a lot of large stuff on the stack, and it runs out of room. Most OS's put a limit on the maximum size the stack can reach, and when you hit that limit you get the stack overflow. Modern hardware can detect stack overflows and it's usually doom for your process.
A buffer overflow is a little different. So first question - what's a buffer? Well, it's a bounded chunk of memory. That memory could be on the heap, or it could be on the stack. But the important thing is you have X bytes that you know you have access to. You then write some code that writes X + more bytes into that space. The compiler has probably already used the space beyond your buffer for other things, and by writing too much, you've overwritten those other things. Buffer overruns are often not seen immediately, as you don't notice them until you try to do something with the other memory that's been trashed.
Also, remember how I mentioned that return addresses are stored on the stack too? This is the source of many security issues due to buffer overruns. You have code that uses a buffer on the stack and has an overflow vulnerability. A clever hacker can structure the data that overflows the buffer to overwrite that return address, to point to code in the buffer itself, and that's how they get code to execute. It's nasty.
What happens when I initially initialize my variables in the code.. Are they in the code segment or in the data segment or in the heap?
I'm going to talk from a C / C++ perspective here. Assuming you've got a variable declaration:
int i;
That reserves (typically) four bytes on the stack. If instead you have:
char *buffer = malloc(100);
That actually reserves two chunks of memory. The call to malloc allocates 100 bytes on the heap. But you also need storage for the pointer, buffer. That storage is, again, on the stack, and on a 32-bit machine will be 4 bytes (64-bit machine will use 8 bytes).
Where do arrays get stored...???
It depends on how you declare them. If you do a simple array:
char str[128];
for example, that'll reserve 128 bytes on the stack. C never hits the heap unless you explicitly ask it to by calling an allocation method like malloc.
If instead you declare a pointer (like buffer above) the storage for the pointer is on the stack, the actual data for the array is on the heap.
Is it that after my code executes all that was in my heap gets erased...???
Basically, yes. The OS will clean up the memory used by a process after it exits. The heap is a chunk of memory in your process, so the OS will clean it up. Although it depends on what you mean by "clean it up." The OS marks those chunks of RAM as now free, and will reuse it later. If you had explicit cleanup code (like C++ destructors) you'll need to make sure those get called, the OS won't call them for you.
All in all, please tell me about heap in a more simplified manner than just, its for malloc and alloc?
The heap is, much like it's name, a bunch of free bytes that you can grab a piece at a time, do whatever you want with, then throw back to use for something else. You grab a chunk of bytes by calling malloc, and you throw it back by calling free.
Why would you do this? Well, there's a couple of common reasons:
You don't know how many of a thing
you need until run time (based on
user input, for example). So you
dynamically allocate on the heap as
you need them.
You need large data structures. On
Windows, for example, a thread's
stack is limited by default to 1
meg. If you're working with large
bitmaps, for example, that'll be a
fast way to blow your stack and get
a stack overflow. So you grab that
space of the heap, which is usually
much, much larger than the stack.
The code, data, stack and heap?
Not really a question, but I wanted to clarify. The "code" segment contains the executable bytes for your application. Typically code segments are read only in memory to help prevent tampering. The data segment contains constants that are compiled into the code - things like strings in your code or array initializers need to be stored somewhere, the data segment is where they go. Again, the data segment is typically read only.
The stack is a writable section of memory, and usually has a limited size. The OS will initialize the stack and the C startup code calls your main() function for you. The heap is also a writable section of memory. It's reserved by the OS, and functions like malloc and free manage getting chunks out of it and putting them back.
So, that's the overview. I hope this helps.
With respect to stack... This is precicely where the parameters and local variables of the functions / procedures are stored. To be more precise, the params and local variables of the currently executing function is only accessible from the stack... Other variables that belong to chain of functions that were executed before it will be in stack but will not be accessible until the current function completed its operations.
With respect global variables, I believe these are stored in data segment and is always accessible from any function within the created program.
With respect to Heap... These are additional memories that can be made allotted to your program whenever you need them (malloc or new)... You need to know where the allocated memory is in heap (address / pointer) so that you can access it when you need. Incase you loose the address, the memory becomes in-accessible, but the data still remains there. Depending on the platform and language this has to be either manually freed by your program (or a memory leak occurs) or needs to be garbage collected. Heap is comparitively huge to stack and hence can be used to store large volumes of data (like files, streams etc)... Thats why Objects / Files are created in Heap and a pointer to the object / file is stored in stack.
In terms of C/C++ programs, the data segment stores static (global) variables, the stack stores local variables, and the heap stores dynamically allocated variables (anything you malloc or new to get a pointer to). The code segment only stores the machine code (the part of your program that gets executed by the CPU).
I've searched a while but no conclusive answer is present on why value types have to be allotted on the stack while the reference types i.e. dynamic memory or the objects have to reside on the heap.
why cannot the same be alloted on the stack?
They can be. In practice they're not because stack is a typically scarcer resource than heap and allocating reference types on the stack may exhaust it quickly. Further, if a function returns data allocated on its stack, it will require copying semantics on the caller's part or risk returning something that will be overwritten by the next function call.
Value types, typically local variables, can be brought in and out of scope quickly and easily with native machine instructions. Copy semantics for value types on return is trivial as most fit into machine registers. This happens often and should be as cheap as possible.
It is not correct that value types always live on the stack. Read Jon Skeet's article on the topic:
Memory in .NET - what goes where
I understand that the stack paradigm (nested allocations/deallocations) cannot handle certain algorithms which need non-nested object lifetimes.
just as the static allocation paradigm cannot handle recursive procedure calls. (e.g. naive calculation of fibonacci(n) as f(n-1) + f(n-2))
I'm not aware of a simple algorithm that would illustrate this fact though. any suggestions would be appreciated :-)
Local variables are allocated in the stack. If that was not the case, you wouldn't be able to have variables pointing to the heap when allocating variable's memory. You CAN allocate things in the stack if you want, just create a buffer big enough locally and manage it yourself.
Anything a method puts on the stack will vanish when the method exits. In .net and Java, it would be perfectly acceptable (in fact desirable) if a class object vanished as soon as the last reference to it vanished, but it would be fatal for an object to vanish while references to it still exist. It is not in the general case possible for the compiler to know, when a method creates an object, whether any references to that object will continue to exist after the method exits. Absent such assurance, the only safe way to allocate class objects is to store them on the heap.
Incidentally, in .net, one major advantage of mutable value types is that they can be passed by reference without surrendering perpetual control over them. If class 'foo', or a method thereof, has a structure 'boz' which one of foo's methods passes by reference to method 'bar', it is possible for bar, or the methods it calls, to do whatever they want to 'boz' until they return, but once 'bar' returns any references it held to 'boz' will be gone. This often leads to much safer and cleaner semantics than the promiscuously-sharable references used for class objects.