Alloca()在堆栈上分配内存,而不是像malloc()那样在堆上分配内存。因此,当我从例程返回时,内存被释放。这实际上解决了动态分配内存的问题。通过malloc()释放分配的内存是一个非常令人头痛的问题,如果以某种方式错过释放会导致各种内存问题。

尽管有上述特性,为什么不鼓励使用alloca() ?


当前回答

答案就在手册页中(至少在Linux上):

返回值 函数的作用是:返回一个指向对象开头的指针 分配空间。如果 分配的原因 堆栈溢出,程序行为未定义。

这并不是说它永远不应该被使用。我工作的一个OSS项目广泛使用它,只要你不滥用它(分配巨大的值),它是好的。一旦超过了“几百字节”的标记,就应该转而使用malloc和friends。您可能仍然会遇到分配失败,但至少您会得到一些失败的指示,而不是仅仅耗尽堆栈。

其他回答

仍然不鼓励使用分配,为什么?

我没有看到这样的共识。很多强大的专业人士;一些缺点:

C99 provides variable length arrays, which would often be used preferentially as the notation's more consistent with fixed-length arrays and intuitive overall many systems have less overall memory/address-space available for the stack than they do for the heap, which makes the program slightly more susceptible to memory exhaustion (through stack overflow): this may be seen as a good or a bad thing - one of the reasons the stack doesn't automatically grow the way heap does is to prevent out-of-control programs from having as much adverse impact on the entire machine when used in a more local scope (such as a while or for loop) or in several scopes, the memory accumulates per iteration/scope and is not released until the function exits: this contrasts with normal variables defined in the scope of a control structure (e.g. for {int i = 0; i < 2; ++i) { X } would accumulate alloca-ed memory requested at X, but memory for a fixed-sized array would be recycled per iteration). modern compilers typically do not inline functions that call alloca, but if you force them then the alloca will happen in the callers' context (i.e. the stack won't be released until the caller returns) a long time ago alloca transitioned from a non-portable feature/hack to a Standardised extension, but some negative perception may persist the lifetime is bound to the function scope, which may or may not suit the programmer better than malloc's explicit control having to use malloc encourages thinking about the deallocation - if that's managed through a wrapper function (e.g. WonderfulObject_DestructorFree(ptr)), then the function provides a point for implementation clean up operations (like closing file descriptors, freeing internal pointers or doing some logging) without explicit changes to client code: sometimes it's a nice model to adopt consistently in this pseudo-OO style of programming, it's natural to want something like WonderfulObject* p = WonderfulObject_AllocConstructor(); - that's possible when the "constructor" is a function returning malloc-ed memory (as the memory remains allocated after the function returns the value to be stored in p), but not if the "constructor" uses alloca a macro version of WonderfulObject_AllocConstructor could achieve this, but "macros are evil" in that they can conflict with each other and non-macro code and create unintended substitutions and consequent difficult-to-diagnose problems missing free operations can be detected by ValGrind, Purify etc. but missing "destructor" calls can't always be detected at all - one very tenuous benefit in terms of enforcement of intended usage; some alloca() implementations (such as GCC's) use an inlined macro for alloca(), so runtime substitution of a memory-usage diagnostic library isn't possible the way it is for malloc/realloc/free (e.g. electric fence) some implementations have subtle issues: for example, from the Linux manpage:

在许多系统中,alloca()不能在函数调用的参数列表中使用,因为由alloca()保留的堆栈空间将出现在堆栈中用于函数参数的空间中间。

我知道这个问题被标记为C,但作为一名c++程序员,我认为我应该使用c++来说明alloca的潜在效用:下面的代码(以及这里的ideone)创建了一个向量,跟踪不同大小的多态类型,这些类型是堆栈分配的(生命期与函数返回绑定),而不是堆分配的。

#include <alloca.h>
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>

struct Base
{
    virtual ~Base() { }
    virtual int to_int() const = 0;
};

struct Integer : Base
{
    Integer(int n) : n_(n) { }
    int to_int() const { return n_; }
    int n_;
};

struct Double : Base
{
    Double(double n) : n_(n) { }
    int to_int() const { return -n_; }
    double n_;
};

inline Base* factory(double d) __attribute__((always_inline));

inline Base* factory(double d)
{
    if ((double)(int)d != d)
        return new (alloca(sizeof(Double))) Double(d);
    else
        return new (alloca(sizeof(Integer))) Integer(d);
}

int main()
{
    std::vector<Base*> numbers;
    numbers.push_back(factory(29.3));
    numbers.push_back(factory(29));
    numbers.push_back(factory(7.1));
    numbers.push_back(factory(2));
    numbers.push_back(factory(231.0));
    for (std::vector<Base*>::const_iterator i = numbers.begin();
         i != numbers.end(); ++i)
    {
        std::cout << *i << ' ' << (*i)->to_int() << '\n';
        (*i)->~Base();   // optionally / else Undefined Behaviour iff the
                         // program depends on side effects of destructor
    }
}

在我看来,分配和变长数组的最大风险是,如果分配的大小出乎意料地大,它可能会以非常危险的方式失败。

堆栈上的分配通常没有检入用户代码。

现代操作系统通常会在*下面放置一个保护页面,以检测堆栈溢出。当堆栈溢出时,内核可能会扩展堆栈或杀死进程。Linux在2017年将这个保护区域扩展到比页面大得多,但它的大小仍然是有限的。

因此,作为一条规则,在使用之前的分配之前,最好避免在堆栈上分配超过一个页面。使用分配或可变长度数组,很容易让攻击者在堆栈上进行任意大小分配,从而跳过任何保护页并访问任意内存。

*在当今最广泛的系统中,堆栈向下增长。

我认为没有人提到过这一点,但是alloca也有一些严重的安全问题,不一定是malloc所存在的(尽管这些问题也会出现在任何基于堆栈的数组中,无论是否是动态的)。由于内存是在堆栈上分配的,缓冲区溢出/下溢的后果比仅仅使用malloc要严重得多。

In particular, the return address for a function is stored on the stack. If this value gets corrupted, your code could be made to go to any executable region of memory. Compilers go to great lengths to make this difficult (in particular by randomizing address layout). However, this is clearly worse than just a stack overflow since the best case is a SEGFAULT if the return value is corrupted, but it could also start executing a random piece of memory or in the worst case some region of memory which compromises your program's security.

我想没有人提到过这一点:在函数中使用alloca会阻碍或禁用一些本来可以应用在函数中的优化,因为编译器无法知道函数的堆栈帧的大小。

例如,C编译器常见的优化是在函数中消除帧指针的使用,而是相对于堆栈指针进行帧访问;所以还有一种通用寄存器。但如果在函数内部调用alloca,则sp和fp之间的差异对于函数的一部分是未知的,因此无法进行此优化。

考虑到alloca的使用很少,而且它作为标准函数的不光彩地位,编译器设计人员很可能会禁用任何可能导致alloca出现问题的优化,如果要使它与alloca一起工作需要付出更多的努力的话。

更新: 由于变长局部数组已经添加到C语言中,并且由于这些向编译器提出了与alloca非常相似的代码生成问题,我看到“使用的罕见性和阴暗状态”不适用于底层机制;但是我仍然怀疑使用alloca或VLA会损害使用它们的函数中的代码生成。我欢迎来自编译器设计人员的任何反馈。

实际上,alloca并不保证使用堆栈。 事实上,gcc-2.95的alloca实现使用malloc本身从堆中分配内存。此外,这个实现是有bug的,它可能会导致内存泄漏和一些意想不到的行为,如果你在一个块内调用它进一步使用goto。并不是说您永远都不应该使用它,但有时alloca会导致比它从me中释放更多的开销。