Talk:Stack overflow - Revision history

Qwerfjkl (bot): Implementing WP:PIQA (Task 26)

2024-01-27T11:38:19Z

← Previous revision		Revision as of 11:38, 27 January 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{WikiProject ~~Computing~~\|class=~~start~~\|~~importance=low}}~~		{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=Start\|
			{{WikiProject Computing\|importance=low}}

			}}
	I've rewritten this article to expand it to include buffer overflows that have a security implication (as well as including the current content), you can see it [[User:Abaddon314159/sandbox\|here]]. It could use some other eyes (preferably eyes of someone that can spell) and could use some more sources, but all in all I think its a better article...I'm looking for comments, feel free to edit it in my sandbox for now and if there are no objectsion by, say, this time next week, I'll integrate the changes into the existing article... --[[User:Abaddon314159\|Michael Lynn]] 08:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)		I've rewritten this article to expand it to include buffer overflows that have a security implication (as well as including the current content), you can see it [[User:Abaddon314159/sandbox\|here]]. It could use some other eyes (preferably eyes of someone that can spell) and could use some more sources, but all in all I think its a better article...I'm looking for comments, feel free to edit it in my sandbox for now and if there are no objectsion by, say, this time next week, I'll integrate the changes into the existing article... --[[User:Abaddon314159\|Michael Lynn]] 08:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
	:stack buffer overflows are covered in depth elsewhere, while they're occasionally referred to as "stack overflows", I would argue that usage is incorrect. -- [[User:Taviso\|taviso]] 04:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)		:stack buffer overflows are covered in depth elsewhere, while they're occasionally referred to as "stack overflows", I would argue that usage is incorrect. -- [[User:Taviso\|taviso]] 04:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Namnatulco: /* "Very deep recursion" */

2018-09-25T05:27:36Z

"Very deep recursion"

← Previous revision		Revision as of 05:27, 25 September 2018
Line 62:		Line 62:

	This section seems to suggest that a stack may be required to convert primitive recursion to a loop. It's my understanding that '''all''' primitive recursion can be converted to a loop '''without''' a stack. By my understanding, it's non-primitive recursion that would require a stack to be implemented into a loop. Is the article wrong or am I misinformed? If the article is correct, I would suggest further citations and notes be added. [[Special:Contributions/68.117.55.155\|68.117.55.155]] ([[User talk:68.117.55.155\|talk]]) 05:11, 25 September 2018 (UTC)		This section seems to suggest that a stack may be required to convert primitive recursion to a loop. It's my understanding that '''all''' primitive recursion can be converted to a loop '''without''' a stack. By my understanding, it's non-primitive recursion that would require a stack to be implemented into a loop. Is the article wrong or am I misinformed? If the article is correct, I would suggest further citations and notes be added. [[Special:Contributions/68.117.55.155\|68.117.55.155]] ([[User talk:68.117.55.155\|talk]]) 05:11, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
			:The article is trying to say that it is necessary for this to be done due to finite memory, essentially. The example clarifies it a bit; the recursive implementation on the left in practice requires more memory than the loop implementation on the right, because of the way functions are implemented in most architectures. In practice this means that if you do recursion in C++ or a similar language using the example on the left, you're going to waste a lot of memory, because every time the function is called, space on the stack is reserved for the argument, a base pointer, a return pointer and the function's scope. Does that help? I'm not really sure how to modify the article to explain this better, though, and I don't have a reference on hand that I can add. [[User:Namnatulco\|Namnatulco]] ([[User talk:Namnatulco\|talk]]) 05:27, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

68.117.55.155: /* "Very deep recursion" */ new section

2018-09-25T05:11:16Z

"Very deep recursion": new section

← Previous revision		Revision as of 05:11, 25 September 2018
Line 58:		Line 58:
	:: Yes, these are quite distinct: different causes (overrun at the end of the stack usually caused by deep recursion ''versus'' a buffer overflow in the middle of the stack caused by insufficient bounds checking) and different effects (program crash ''versus'' exploitable security hole). A "stack buffer overflow" is always a kind of "buffer overflow", but does not necessarily cause a "stack overflow".		:: Yes, these are quite distinct: different causes (overrun at the end of the stack usually caused by deep recursion ''versus'' a buffer overflow in the middle of the stack caused by insufficient bounds checking) and different effects (program crash ''versus'' exploitable security hole). A "stack buffer overflow" is always a kind of "buffer overflow", but does not necessarily cause a "stack overflow".
	:: I can understand the confusion of non (systems) programmers, however, so the article should probably address this explicitly. I could not come up with a good way to phrase this, though. —''[[User:Ruud Koot\|Ruud]]'' 10:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC)		:: I can understand the confusion of non (systems) programmers, however, so the article should probably address this explicitly. I could not come up with a good way to phrase this, though. —''[[User:Ruud Koot\|Ruud]]'' 10:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

			== "Very deep recursion" ==

			This section seems to suggest that a stack may be required to convert primitive recursion to a loop. It's my understanding that '''all''' primitive recursion can be converted to a loop '''without''' a stack. By my understanding, it's non-primitive recursion that would require a stack to be implemented into a loop. Is the article wrong or am I misinformed? If the article is correct, I would suggest further citations and notes be added. [[Special:Contributions/68.117.55.155\|68.117.55.155]] ([[User talk:68.117.55.155\|talk]]) 05:11, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Mervyn: start class

2017-03-18T12:15:27Z

start class

← Previous revision		Revision as of 12:15, 18 March 2017
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{WikiProject Computing\|class=\|importance=}}		{{WikiProject Computing\|class=start\|importance=low}}

	I've rewritten this article to expand it to include buffer overflows that have a security implication (as well as including the current content), you can see it [[User:Abaddon314159/sandbox\|here]]. It could use some other eyes (preferably eyes of someone that can spell) and could use some more sources, but all in all I think its a better article...I'm looking for comments, feel free to edit it in my sandbox for now and if there are no objectsion by, say, this time next week, I'll integrate the changes into the existing article... --[[User:Abaddon314159\|Michael Lynn]] 08:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)		I've rewritten this article to expand it to include buffer overflows that have a security implication (as well as including the current content), you can see it [[User:Abaddon314159/sandbox\|here]]. It could use some other eyes (preferably eyes of someone that can spell) and could use some more sources, but all in all I think its a better article...I'm looking for comments, feel free to edit it in my sandbox for now and if there are no objectsion by, say, this time next week, I'll integrate the changes into the existing article... --[[User:Abaddon314159\|Michael Lynn]] 08:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

103.9.114.94 at 13:07, 23 February 2015

2015-02-23T13:07:58Z

← Previous revision		Revision as of 13:07, 23 February 2015
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{WikiProject Computing\|class=\|importance=}}		{{WikiProject Computing\|class=\|importance=}}

	==Proposed Rewrite==
	I've rewritten this article to expand it to include buffer overflows that have a security implication (as well as including the current content), you can see it [[User:Abaddon314159/sandbox\|here]]. It could use some other eyes (preferably eyes of someone that can spell) and could use some more sources, but all in all I think its a better article...I'm looking for comments, feel free to edit it in my sandbox for now and if there are no objectsion by, say, this time next week, I'll integrate the changes into the existing article... --[[User:Abaddon314159\|Michael Lynn]] 08:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)		I've rewritten this article to expand it to include buffer overflows that have a security implication (as well as including the current content), you can see it [[User:Abaddon314159/sandbox\|here]]. It could use some other eyes (preferably eyes of someone that can spell) and could use some more sources, but all in all I think its a better article...I'm looking for comments, feel free to edit it in my sandbox for now and if there are no objectsion by, say, this time next week, I'll integrate the changes into the existing article... --[[User:Abaddon314159\|Michael Lynn]] 08:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
	:stack buffer overflows are covered in depth elsewhere, while they're occasionally referred to as "stack overflows", I would argue that usage is incorrect. -- [[User:Taviso\|taviso]] 04:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)		:stack buffer overflows are covered in depth elsewhere, while they're occasionally referred to as "stack overflows", I would argue that usage is incorrect. -- [[User:Taviso\|taviso]] 04:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Ruud Koot: /* Proposed merge of "Stack buffer overflow" into "Stack overflow" (this article) */ cmt

2014-09-17T10:01:42Z

Proposed merge of "Stack buffer overflow" into "Stack overflow" (this article): cmt

← Previous revision		Revision as of 10:01, 17 September 2014
Line 55:		Line 55:
	:"Oh, drat these computers, they're so naughty and so complex. I could pinch them." -(Marvin the Martian, circa 2453) WHY do we have to defend against the urge to oversimplify?		:"Oh, drat these computers, they're so naughty and so complex. I could pinch them." -(Marvin the Martian, circa 2453) WHY do we have to defend against the urge to oversimplify?
	:PS: Looking again at the jargony noun-noun-noun term, I noticed that "stack buffer overflow" is not guaranteed to parse correctly. I have to point out: "Stack buffer overflow" is not "overflow" of the "stack buffer" (no one even calls the stack the "stack buffer"); it is "overflow" of a "buffer" that happens to be on the "stack"! -[[User:A876\|A876]] ([[User talk:A876\|talk]]) 05:00, 14 June 2014 (UTC)		:PS: Looking again at the jargony noun-noun-noun term, I noticed that "stack buffer overflow" is not guaranteed to parse correctly. I have to point out: "Stack buffer overflow" is not "overflow" of the "stack buffer" (no one even calls the stack the "stack buffer"); it is "overflow" of a "buffer" that happens to be on the "stack"! -[[User:A876\|A876]] ([[User talk:A876\|talk]]) 05:00, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

			:: Yes, these are quite distinct: different causes (overrun at the end of the stack usually caused by deep recursion ''versus'' a buffer overflow in the middle of the stack caused by insufficient bounds checking) and different effects (program crash ''versus'' exploitable security hole). A "stack buffer overflow" is always a kind of "buffer overflow", but does not necessarily cause a "stack overflow".
			:: I can understand the confusion of non (systems) programmers, however, so the article should probably address this explicitly. I could not come up with a good way to phrase this, though. —''[[User:Ruud Koot\|Ruud]]'' 10:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

A876: /* Proposed merge of "Stack buffer overflow" into "Stack overflow" (this article) */ PS: alternative parsing can cause misunderstanding.

2014-06-14T05:53:29Z

Proposed merge of "Stack buffer overflow" into "Stack overflow" (this article): PS: alternative parsing can cause misunderstanding.

← Previous revision		Revision as of 05:53, 14 June 2014
Line 53:		Line 53:
	:"Stack buffer overflow" (better-named "stack buffer overrun"), a type of "buffer overflow" (better-named "'''buffer overrun'''"), is a single errant operation caused by storing multi-byte data into an allocated multi-byte space (buffer) that is not long enough, which, due to lack of safeguards, silently malfunctions, '''overwriting adjacent memory cells that are allocated to other data''', causing crashes or weird behavior, or facilitating execution of [[code injection\|injected code]] or [[return-oriented programming\|returns to injected addresses]]. (And don't forget buffer-read overruns, which can disclose random samples of data that should not be disclosed (Heartbleed).)		:"Stack buffer overflow" (better-named "stack buffer overrun"), a type of "buffer overflow" (better-named "'''buffer overrun'''"), is a single errant operation caused by storing multi-byte data into an allocated multi-byte space (buffer) that is not long enough, which, due to lack of safeguards, silently malfunctions, '''overwriting adjacent memory cells that are allocated to other data''', causing crashes or weird behavior, or facilitating execution of [[code injection\|injected code]] or [[return-oriented programming\|returns to injected addresses]]. (And don't forget buffer-read overruns, which can disclose random samples of data that should not be disclosed (Heartbleed).)
	:That they happen to sound alike is too feeble to justify a merger. The result would be crude, explaining two different kinds of malfunction that both involve the stack. I might merge "Stack buffer overflow" into "Buffer overflow" if I -just had to- merge something, but -never- into "Stack overflow".		:That they happen to sound alike is too feeble to justify a merger. The result would be crude, explaining two different kinds of malfunction that both involve the stack. I might merge "Stack buffer overflow" into "Buffer overflow" if I -just had to- merge something, but -never- into "Stack overflow".
	:"Oh, drat these computers, they're so naughty and so complex. I could pinch them." -(Marvin the Martian, circa 2453) WHY do we have to defend against the urge to oversimplify? ~~-[[User:A876\|A876]] ([[User talk:A876\|talk]]) 05:00, 14 June 2014 (UTC)~~		:"Oh, drat these computers, they're so naughty and so complex. I could pinch them." -(Marvin the Martian, circa 2453) WHY do we have to defend against the urge to oversimplify?
			:PS: Looking again at the jargony noun-noun-noun term, I noticed that "stack buffer overflow" is not guaranteed to parse correctly. I have to point out: "Stack buffer overflow" is not "overflow" of the "stack buffer" (no one even calls the stack the "stack buffer"); it is "overflow" of a "buffer" that happens to be on the "stack"! -[[User:A876\|A876]] ([[User talk:A876\|talk]]) 05:00, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

A876: refactoring: moved Teemu Leisti's comments about the move discussion (and his edit comment) from a very old thread down into the current move discussion. (i did not see his comment before writing mine.)

2014-06-14T05:16:10Z

refactoring: moved Teemu Leisti's comments about the move discussion (and his edit comment) from a very old thread down into the current move discussion. (i did not see his comment before writing mine.)

A876: /* Proposed merge */ sorry, no. two VERY DIFFERENT things.

2014-06-14T05:01:00Z

Proposed merge: sorry, no. two VERY DIFFERENT things.

← Previous revision		Revision as of 05:01, 14 June 2014
Line 48:		Line 48:
	In principle stacks are unbounded, however in practice there are bounds even on user defined stacks, and I believe this article does, reasonably, attempt to describe machine stacks, not user defined data structures. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures\|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Skaller\|Skaller]] ([[User talk:Skaller\|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Skaller\|contribs]]) 16:00, 29 May 2013 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->		In principle stacks are unbounded, however in practice there are bounds even on user defined stacks, and I believe this article does, reasonably, attempt to describe machine stacks, not user defined data structures. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures\|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Skaller\|Skaller]] ([[User talk:Skaller\|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Skaller\|contribs]]) 16:00, 29 May 2013 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	== Proposed merge ==		==Proposed merge of "Stack buffer overflow" into "Stack overflow" (this article)==
	This article and [[Stack buffer overflow]] seem to be ~~aout~~ the same thing. Is there any reason why they should not be merged? [[User:Peter Flass\|Peter Flass]] ([[User talk:Peter Flass\|talk]]) 12:59, 26 January 2014 (UTC)		This article and [[Stack buffer overflow]] seem to be about the same thing. Is there any reason why they should not be merged? [[User:Peter Flass\|Peter Flass]] ([[User talk:Peter Flass\|talk]]) 12:59, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
	:They are not about the same topic. Both overflows are types of bounds violations. A stack overflow occurs when a program is attempting to use the stack, but instead accesses memory beyond the bounds of the stack. From reading the other article, it looks to me like a stack buffer overflow occurs when a program attempts to access a data structure located within the stack, but accesses memory beyond the bounds of the data structure. —[[User:Tanner Swett\|Tanner Swett]] ([[User talk:Tanner Swett\|talk]]) 21:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)		:They are not about the same topic. Both overflows are types of bounds violations. A stack overflow occurs when a program is attempting to use the stack, but instead accesses memory beyond the bounds of the stack. From reading the other article, it looks to me like a stack buffer overflow occurs when a program attempts to access a data structure located within the stack, but accesses memory beyond the bounds of the data structure. —[[User:Tanner Swett\|Tanner Swett]] ([[User talk:Tanner Swett\|talk]]) 21:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
	::It feels like splitting hairs to have two articles, both talking about computer science issues that are almost but not quite the same. The differences and subtleties could easily be noted in a single article IMO. [[User:Michaelward82\|Michaelward82]] ([[User talk:Michaelward82\|talk]]) 14:53, 6 May 2014 (UTC)		::It feels like splitting hairs to have two articles, both talking about computer science issues that are almost but not quite the same. The differences and subtleties could easily be noted in a single article IMO. [[User:Michaelward82\|Michaelward82]] ([[User talk:Michaelward82\|talk]]) 14:53, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
			:These are two VERY DIFFERENT things.
			:"Stack overflow" usually happens via operations that are all individually valid (push, call, allocate), but collectively '''use up''' the available, allocated stack space. On modern processors, stack overflow triggers an exception.
			:"Stack buffer overflow" (better-named "stack buffer overrun"), a type of "buffer overflow" (better-named "'''buffer overrun'''"), is a single errant operation caused by storing multi-byte data into an allocated space that is not long enough, which, due to lack of safeguards, silently malfunctions, '''overwriting adjacent memory cells that are allocated to other data''', causing crashes or weird behavior, or facilitating execution of [[code injection\|injected code]] or [[return-oriented programming\|returns to injected addresses]]. (And don't forget buffer-read overruns, which can disclose random samples of data that should not be disclosed (Heartbleed).)
			:That they happen to sound alike is too feeble to justify a merger. The result would be crude, explaining two different kinds of malfunction that both involve the stack. I might merge "Stack buffer overflow" into "buffer overflow" if I -had to- merge something, but -never- into "Stack overflow".
			:"Oh, drat these computers, they're so naughty and so complex. I could pinch them." -(Marvin the Martian, circa 2453) WHY do we have to defend against the urge to oversimplify? -[[User:A876\|A876]] ([[User talk:A876\|talk]]) 05:00, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Teemu Leisti: /* Jeff Atwood, Joel Spolsky, and StackOverflow.com */

2014-06-06T10:08:16Z

Jeff Atwood, Joel Spolsky, and StackOverflow.com

← Previous revision		Revision as of 10:08, 6 June 2014
Line 35:		Line 35:

	: You know, I think it is. [[User:Teemu Leisti\|Teemu Leisti]] ([[User talk:Teemu Leisti\|talk]]) 10:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC)		: You know, I think it is. [[User:Teemu Leisti\|Teemu Leisti]] ([[User talk:Teemu Leisti\|talk]]) 10:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

			:: Oh, and I just noticed it has been done already: [[Stack Overflow]], also redirected to from [[Stack Overflow (website)]]. [[User:Teemu Leisti\|Teemu Leisti]] ([[User talk:Teemu Leisti\|talk]]) 10:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

	== changed bad wording ==		== changed bad wording ==

← Previous revision		Revision as of 11:38, 27 January 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{WikiProject ~~Computing~~\|class=~~start~~\|~~importance=low}}~~		{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=Start\|
			{{WikiProject Computing\|importance=low}}

			}}
	I've rewritten this article to expand it to include buffer overflows that have a security implication (as well as including the current content), you can see it [[User:Abaddon314159/sandbox\|here]]. It could use some other eyes (preferably eyes of someone that can spell) and could use some more sources, but all in all I think its a better article...I'm looking for comments, feel free to edit it in my sandbox for now and if there are no objectsion by, say, this time next week, I'll integrate the changes into the existing article... --[[User:Abaddon314159\|Michael Lynn]] 08:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)		I've rewritten this article to expand it to include buffer overflows that have a security implication (as well as including the current content), you can see it [[User:Abaddon314159/sandbox\|here]]. It could use some other eyes (preferably eyes of someone that can spell) and could use some more sources, but all in all I think its a better article...I'm looking for comments, feel free to edit it in my sandbox for now and if there are no objectsion by, say, this time next week, I'll integrate the changes into the existing article... --[[User:Abaddon314159\|Michael Lynn]] 08:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
	:stack buffer overflows are covered in depth elsewhere, while they're occasionally referred to as "stack overflows", I would argue that usage is incorrect. -- [[User:Taviso\|taviso]] 04:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)		:stack buffer overflows are covered in depth elsewhere, while they're occasionally referred to as "stack overflows", I would argue that usage is incorrect. -- [[User:Taviso\|taviso]] 04:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

← Previous revision		Revision as of 13:07, 23 February 2015
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{WikiProject Computing\|class=\|importance=}}		{{WikiProject Computing\|class=\|importance=}}

	==Proposed Rewrite==
	I've rewritten this article to expand it to include buffer overflows that have a security implication (as well as including the current content), you can see it [[User:Abaddon314159/sandbox\|here]]. It could use some other eyes (preferably eyes of someone that can spell) and could use some more sources, but all in all I think its a better article...I'm looking for comments, feel free to edit it in my sandbox for now and if there are no objectsion by, say, this time next week, I'll integrate the changes into the existing article... --[[User:Abaddon314159\|Michael Lynn]] 08:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)		I've rewritten this article to expand it to include buffer overflows that have a security implication (as well as including the current content), you can see it [[User:Abaddon314159/sandbox\|here]]. It could use some other eyes (preferably eyes of someone that can spell) and could use some more sources, but all in all I think its a better article...I'm looking for comments, feel free to edit it in my sandbox for now and if there are no objectsion by, say, this time next week, I'll integrate the changes into the existing article... --[[User:Abaddon314159\|Michael Lynn]] 08:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
	:stack buffer overflows are covered in depth elsewhere, while they're occasionally referred to as "stack overflows", I would argue that usage is incorrect. -- [[User:Taviso\|taviso]] 04:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)		:stack buffer overflows are covered in depth elsewhere, while they're occasionally referred to as "stack overflows", I would argue that usage is incorrect. -- [[User:Taviso\|taviso]] 04:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

← Previous revision		Revision as of 05:01, 14 June 2014
Line 48:		Line 48:
	In principle stacks are unbounded, however in practice there are bounds even on user defined stacks, and I believe this article does, reasonably, attempt to describe machine stacks, not user defined data structures. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures\|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Skaller\|Skaller]] ([[User talk:Skaller\|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Skaller\|contribs]]) 16:00, 29 May 2013 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->		In principle stacks are unbounded, however in practice there are bounds even on user defined stacks, and I believe this article does, reasonably, attempt to describe machine stacks, not user defined data structures. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures\|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Skaller\|Skaller]] ([[User talk:Skaller\|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Skaller\|contribs]]) 16:00, 29 May 2013 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	== Proposed merge ==		==Proposed merge of "Stack buffer overflow" into "Stack overflow" (this article)==
	This article and [[Stack buffer overflow]] seem to be ~~aout~~ the same thing. Is there any reason why they should not be merged? [[User:Peter Flass\|Peter Flass]] ([[User talk:Peter Flass\|talk]]) 12:59, 26 January 2014 (UTC)		This article and [[Stack buffer overflow]] seem to be about the same thing. Is there any reason why they should not be merged? [[User:Peter Flass\|Peter Flass]] ([[User talk:Peter Flass\|talk]]) 12:59, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
	:They are not about the same topic. Both overflows are types of bounds violations. A stack overflow occurs when a program is attempting to use the stack, but instead accesses memory beyond the bounds of the stack. From reading the other article, it looks to me like a stack buffer overflow occurs when a program attempts to access a data structure located within the stack, but accesses memory beyond the bounds of the data structure. —[[User:Tanner Swett\|Tanner Swett]] ([[User talk:Tanner Swett\|talk]]) 21:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)		:They are not about the same topic. Both overflows are types of bounds violations. A stack overflow occurs when a program is attempting to use the stack, but instead accesses memory beyond the bounds of the stack. From reading the other article, it looks to me like a stack buffer overflow occurs when a program attempts to access a data structure located within the stack, but accesses memory beyond the bounds of the data structure. —[[User:Tanner Swett\|Tanner Swett]] ([[User talk:Tanner Swett\|talk]]) 21:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
	::It feels like splitting hairs to have two articles, both talking about computer science issues that are almost but not quite the same. The differences and subtleties could easily be noted in a single article IMO. [[User:Michaelward82\|Michaelward82]] ([[User talk:Michaelward82\|talk]]) 14:53, 6 May 2014 (UTC)		::It feels like splitting hairs to have two articles, both talking about computer science issues that are almost but not quite the same. The differences and subtleties could easily be noted in a single article IMO. [[User:Michaelward82\|Michaelward82]] ([[User talk:Michaelward82\|talk]]) 14:53, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
			:These are two VERY DIFFERENT things.
			:"Stack overflow" usually happens via operations that are all individually valid (push, call, allocate), but collectively '''use up''' the available, allocated stack space. On modern processors, stack overflow triggers an exception.
			:"Stack buffer overflow" (better-named "stack buffer overrun"), a type of "buffer overflow" (better-named "'''buffer overrun'''"), is a single errant operation caused by storing multi-byte data into an allocated space that is not long enough, which, due to lack of safeguards, silently malfunctions, '''overwriting adjacent memory cells that are allocated to other data''', causing crashes or weird behavior, or facilitating execution of [[code injection\|injected code]] or [[return-oriented programming\|returns to injected addresses]]. (And don't forget buffer-read overruns, which can disclose random samples of data that should not be disclosed (Heartbleed).)
			:That they happen to sound alike is too feeble to justify a merger. The result would be crude, explaining two different kinds of malfunction that both involve the stack. I might merge "Stack buffer overflow" into "buffer overflow" if I -had to- merge something, but -never- into "Stack overflow".
			:"Oh, drat these computers, they're so naughty and so complex. I could pinch them." -(Marvin the Martian, circa 2453) WHY do we have to defend against the urge to oversimplify? -[[User:A876\|A876]] ([[User talk:A876\|talk]]) 05:00, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

← Previous revision		Revision as of 05:16, 14 June 2014
Line 25:		Line 25:
	:No objections here, sounds like a good idea to me. -- [[User:Taviso\|taviso]] 15:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)		:No objections here, sounds like a good idea to me. -- [[User:Taviso\|taviso]] 15:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
	::Ok then, I'll start making the edits and get it ready later today... --[[User:Abaddon314159\|Michael Lynn]] 01:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)		::Ok then, I'll start making the edits and get it ready later today... --[[User:Abaddon314159\|Michael Lynn]] 01:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

	===Another view: merge into "Buffer overflow"===

⚫	I came to this talk page because the template at the top of the article says that merging ~~this~~ ~~article~~ to article [[Stack overflow]] is being proposed. As pointed out in the discussion above, "stack overflow" means something different, that is, the condition when the memory reserved for a program's stack is exceeded. If ~~this~~ ~~article~~ should be merged anywhere, it should be into the article [[Buffer overflow]]. [[User:Teemu Leisti\|Teemu Leisti]] ([[User talk:Teemu Leisti\|talk]]) 14:42, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

	==Jeff Atwood, Joel Spolsky, and StackOverflow.com==		==Jeff Atwood, Joel Spolsky, and StackOverflow.com==
Line 34:		Line 30:
	Is StackOverflow.com popular enough that it should have an article? I've heard people ask what Stack Overflow is (and not talking about what this article is about). Once it has an article, I guess a link to the article from this page or a disambiguation page would make sense. --[[User:Benatkin\|Ben Atkin]] ([[User talk:Benatkin\|talk]]) 18:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)		Is StackOverflow.com popular enough that it should have an article? I've heard people ask what Stack Overflow is (and not talking about what this article is about). Once it has an article, I guess a link to the article from this page or a disambiguation page would make sense. --[[User:Benatkin\|Ben Atkin]] ([[User talk:Benatkin\|talk]]) 18:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

	: You know, I think it is. [[User:Teemu Leisti\|Teemu Leisti]] ([[User talk:Teemu Leisti\|talk]]) 10:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC)		:You know, I think it is. [[User:Teemu Leisti\|Teemu Leisti]] ([[User talk:Teemu Leisti\|talk]]) 10:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

	:: Oh, and I just noticed it has been done already: [[Stack Overflow]], also redirected to from [[Stack Overflow (website)]]. [[User:Teemu Leisti\|Teemu Leisti]] ([[User talk:Teemu Leisti\|talk]]) 10:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)		:: Oh, and I just noticed it has been done already: [[Stack Overflow]], also redirected to from [[Stack Overflow (website)]]. [[User:Teemu Leisti\|Teemu Leisti]] ([[User talk:Teemu Leisti\|talk]]) 10:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Line 52:		Line 48:
	:They are not about the same topic. Both overflows are types of bounds violations. A stack overflow occurs when a program is attempting to use the stack, but instead accesses memory beyond the bounds of the stack. From reading the other article, it looks to me like a stack buffer overflow occurs when a program attempts to access a data structure located within the stack, but accesses memory beyond the bounds of the data structure. —[[User:Tanner Swett\|Tanner Swett]] ([[User talk:Tanner Swett\|talk]]) 21:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)		:They are not about the same topic. Both overflows are types of bounds violations. A stack overflow occurs when a program is attempting to use the stack, but instead accesses memory beyond the bounds of the stack. From reading the other article, it looks to me like a stack buffer overflow occurs when a program attempts to access a data structure located within the stack, but accesses memory beyond the bounds of the data structure. —[[User:Tanner Swett\|Tanner Swett]] ([[User talk:Tanner Swett\|talk]]) 21:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
	::It feels like splitting hairs to have two articles, both talking about computer science issues that are almost but not quite the same. The differences and subtleties could easily be noted in a single article IMO. [[User:Michaelward82\|Michaelward82]] ([[User talk:Michaelward82\|talk]]) 14:53, 6 May 2014 (UTC)		::It feels like splitting hairs to have two articles, both talking about computer science issues that are almost but not quite the same. The differences and subtleties could easily be noted in a single article IMO. [[User:Michaelward82\|Michaelward82]] ([[User talk:Michaelward82\|talk]]) 14:53, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
		⚫	:::"Stack buffer overflow" should not be merged into "Stack overflow". I came to this talk page because the template at the top of the article says that merging "Stack buffer overflow" into article [[Stack overflow]] is being proposed. As pointed out in the discussion far above (ending 12 August 2007), "stack overflow" means something different, that is, the condition when the memory reserved for a program's stack is exceeded. If "Stack buffer overflow" should be merged anywhere, it should be into the article [[Buffer overflow]]. [[User:Teemu Leisti\|Teemu Leisti]] ([[User talk:Teemu Leisti\|talk]]) 14:42, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
	:These are two VERY DIFFERENT things.		:These are two VERY DIFFERENT things.
	:"Stack overflow" usually happens via operations that are all individually valid (push, call, allocate), but collectively '''use up''' the available, allocated stack space. On modern processors, stack overflow triggers an exception.		:"Stack overflow" usually happens via operations that are all individually valid (push, call, allocate), but collectively '''use up''' the available, allocated stack space. On modern processors, stack overflow triggers an exception.
	:"Stack buffer overflow" (better-named "stack buffer overrun"), a type of "buffer overflow" (better-named "'''buffer overrun'''"), is a single errant operation caused by storing multi-byte data into an allocated space that is not long enough, which, due to lack of safeguards, silently malfunctions, '''overwriting adjacent memory cells that are allocated to other data''', causing crashes or weird behavior, or facilitating execution of [[code injection\|injected code]] or [[return-oriented programming\|returns to injected addresses]]. (And don't forget buffer-read overruns, which can disclose random samples of data that should not be disclosed (Heartbleed).)		:"Stack buffer overflow" (better-named "stack buffer overrun"), a type of "buffer overflow" (better-named "'''buffer overrun'''"), is a single errant operation caused by storing multi-byte data into an allocated multi-byte space (buffer) that is not long enough, which, due to lack of safeguards, silently malfunctions, '''overwriting adjacent memory cells that are allocated to other data''', causing crashes or weird behavior, or facilitating execution of [[code injection\|injected code]] or [[return-oriented programming\|returns to injected addresses]]. (And don't forget buffer-read overruns, which can disclose random samples of data that should not be disclosed (Heartbleed).)
	:That they happen to sound alike is too feeble to justify a merger. The result would be crude, explaining two different kinds of malfunction that both involve the stack. I might merge "Stack buffer overflow" into "~~buffer~~ overflow" if I -had to- merge something, but -never- into "Stack overflow".		:That they happen to sound alike is too feeble to justify a merger. The result would be crude, explaining two different kinds of malfunction that both involve the stack. I might merge "Stack buffer overflow" into "Buffer overflow" if I -just had to- merge something, but -never- into "Stack overflow".
	:"Oh, drat these computers, they're so naughty and so complex. I could pinch them." -(Marvin the Martian, circa 2453) WHY do we have to defend against the urge to oversimplify? -[[User:A876\|A876]] ([[User talk:A876\|talk]]) 05:00, 14 June 2014 (UTC)		:"Oh, drat these computers, they're so naughty and so complex. I could pinch them." -(Marvin the Martian, circa 2453) WHY do we have to defend against the urge to oversimplify? -[[User:A876\|A876]] ([[User talk:A876\|talk]]) 05:00, 14 June 2014 (UTC)