Message boards :
Number crunching :
Stack-based Buffer Overrun with Lunatics_x41zc
Message board moderation
Author | Message |
---|---|
CElliott Send message Joined: 19 Jul 99 Posts: 178 Credit: 79,285,961 RAC: 0 |
In the last two days I have had 2 BugCheck 139 (KERNEL_SECURITY_CHECK_FAILURE) with param 1 = 3 (A LIST_ENTRY has been corrupted...). In both cases Windbg supplied the following diagnostic information: DEFAULT_BUCKET_ID: LIST_ENTRY_CORRUPT BUGCHECK_STR: 0x139 PROCESS_NAME: Lunatics_x41zc CURRENT_IRQL: 2 ERROR_CODE: (NTSTATUS) 0xc0000409 - The system detected an overrun of a stack-based buffer in this application. This overrun could potentially allow a malicious user to gain control of this application. I just installed new apps with the 0.43a installer yesterday. Previously I was using the 0.43 installer apps. ON THE OTHER HAND, this system has experienced a bugcheck error of many sorts nearly every day since I installed a Gigabyte replacement mobo received on RMA. The only difference between the last two bugcheck errors and the previous ones is that I investigated the last two with a memory dump and Windbg. Moreover, it is not unusual that Lunatics_x41zc would have the CPU as I run six at a time, all the time. This problem occurred while I was running Windows 8, and appeared again just now about two minutes after the very first boot into Windows 8.1, which MS forced me to install. In any case, does anyone think that Lunatics_x41zc could have a buffer overrun problem? If so, can I supply any more information? |
Richard Haselgrove Send message Joined: 4 Jul 99 Posts: 14650 Credit: 200,643,578 RAC: 874 |
That particular application (you appear to be using the cuda 5.0 variant of x41zc) has remained unchanged since installer 0.40 in 2012 (the packaging - app_info information - was changed in May 2013 to match the setiathome_v7 release, but the application itself was already compatible and didn't need changing). It's always possible that there is a buffer overrun buried deeply in the code somewhere, and only triggered by an extremely rare data condition - but I've not heard of one, and it seems unlikely, given that revision history. So I suspect that the RMA motherboard (or the motherboard drivers) are the more likely suspect in this case. |
©2024 University of California
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.