Date: Wed, 08 Dec 1999 17:26:49 -0700 From: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> To: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net>, Jonathon McKitrick <jcm@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> Cc: Kris Kennaway <kris@hub.freebsd.org>, freebsd-chat <chat@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Yahoo hacked last night Message-ID: <4.2.0.58.19991208172046.04970d50@localhost> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.9912081154210.4557-100000@fw.wintelcom.net> References: <Pine.BSF.4.02A.9912081911460.38037-100000@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 12:58 PM 12/8/1999 , Alfred Perlstein wrote: >For a function to be able to return to its caller it must store the >return address on the stack, Only on certain CPU architectures. Processors such as the TMS99000, Intel i960, and Sparc -- often called "workspace" machines -- store return addresses in CPU registers and are thus less susceptible. The venerable PDP-11 could do "leaf" function calls this way, too. (When I programmed the LSI-11 in assembler, this was a common optimization. Elminating memory accesses was one way to make those old, primitive CPUs howl.) The semantics of some languages, such as FORTH, require separate return address and data stacks. Programs written in these languages are also less susceptible. --Brett To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4.2.0.58.19991208172046.04970d50>