C: put x86 instructions into array and execute them [duplicate] - c

This question already has answers here:
How to write self-modifying code in x86 assembly
(7 answers)
Closed 6 years ago.
Is there any way to put processor instructions into array, make its memory segment executable and run it as a simple function:
int main()
{
char myarr[13] = {0x90, 0xc3};
(void (*)()) myfunc = (void (*)()) myarr;
myfunc();
return 0;
}

On Unix (these days, that means "everything except Windows and some embedded and mainframe stuff you've probably never heard of") you do this by allocating a whole number of pages with mmap, writing the code into them, and then making them executable with mprotect.
void execute_generated_machine_code(const uint8_t *code, size_t codelen)
{
// in order to manipulate memory protection, we must work with
// whole pages allocated directly from the operating system.
static size_t pagesize;
if (!pagesize) {
pagesize = sysconf(_SC_PAGESIZE);
if (pagesize == (size_t)-1) fatal_perror("getpagesize");
}
// allocate at least enough space for the code + 1 byte
// (so that there will be at least one INT3 - see below),
// rounded up to a multiple of the system page size.
size_t rounded_codesize = ((codelen + 1 + pagesize - 1)
/ pagesize) * pagesize;
void *executable_area = mmap(0, rounded_codesize,
PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE,
MAP_PRIVATE|MAP_ANONYMOUS,
-1, 0);
if (!executable_area) fatal_perror("mmap");
// at this point, executable_area points to memory that is writable but
// *not* executable. load the code into it.
memcpy(executable_area, code, codelen);
// fill the space at the end with INT3 instructions, to guarantee
// a prompt crash if the generated code runs off the end.
// must change this if generating code for non-x86.
memset(executable_area + codelen, 0xCC, rounded_codesize - codelen);
// make executable_area actually executable (and unwritable)
if (mprotect(executable_area, rounded_codesize, PROT_READ|PROT_EXEC))
fatal_perror("mprotect");
// now we can call it. passing arguments / receiving return values
// is left as an exercise (consult libffi source code for clues).
((void (*)(void)) executable_area)();
munmap(executable_area, rounded_codesize);
}
You can probably see that this code is very nearly the same as the Windows code shown in cherrydt's answer. Only the names and arguments of the system calls are different.
When working with code like this, it is important to know that many modern operating systems will not allow you to have a page of RAM that is simultaneously writable and executable. If I'd written PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE|PROT_EXEC in the call to mmap or mprotect, it would fail. This is called the W^X policy; the acronym stands for Write XOR eXecute. It originates with OpenBSD, and the idea is to make it harder for a buffer-overflow exploit to write code into RAM and then execute it. (It's still possible, the exploit just has to find a way to make an appropriate call to mprotect first.)

Depends on the platform.
For Windows, you can use this code:
// Allocate some memory as readable+writable
// TODO: Check return value for error
LPVOID memPtr = VirtualAlloc(NULL, sizeof(myarr), MEM_COMMIT, PAGE_READWRITE);
// Copy data
memcpy(memPtr, myarr, sizeof(myarr);
// Change memory protection to readable+executable
// Again, TODO: Error checking
DWORD oldProtection; // Not used but required for the function
VirtualProtect(memPtr, sizeof(myarr), PAGE_EXECUTE_READ, &oldProtection);
// Assign and call the function
(void (*)()) myfunc = (void (*)()) memPtr;
myfunc();
// Free the memory
VirtualFree(memPtr, 0, MEM_RELEASE);
This codes assumes a myarr array as in your question's code, and it assumes that sizeof will work on it i.e. it has a directly defined size and is not just a pointer passed from elsewhere. If the latter is the case, you would have to specify the size in another way.
Note that here there are two "simplifications" possible, in case you wonder, but I would advise against them:
1) You could call VirtualAlloc with PAGE_EXECUTE_READWRITE, but this is in general bad practice because it would open an attack vector for unwanted code exeuction.
2) You could call VirtualProtect on &myarr directly, but this would just make a random page in your memory executable which happens to contain your array executable, which is even worse than #1 because there might be other data in this page as well which is now suddenly executable as well.
For Linux, I found this on Google but I don't know much about it.

Very OS-dependent: not all OSes will deliberately (read: without a bug) allow you to execute code in the data segment. DOS will because it runs in Real Mode, Linux can also with the appropriate privileges. I don't know about Windows.
Casting is often undefined and has its own caveats, so some elaboration on that topic here. From C11 standard draft N1570, §J.5.7/1:
A pointer to an object or to void may
be cast to a pointer to a function, allowing data to be invoked as a
function (6.5.4).
(Formatting added.)
So, it's perfectly fine and should work as expected. Of course, you would need to cohere to the ABI's calling convention.

Related

Why does printing to stderr cause segmentation fault when dealing with ucontext?

I was working on a project for a course on Operating Systems. The task was to implement a library for dealing with threads, similar to pthreads, but much more simpler. The purpose of it is to practice scheduling algorithms. The final product is a .a file. The course is over and everything worked just fine (in terms of functionality).
Though, I got curious about an issue I faced. On three different functions of my source file, if I add the following line, for instance:
fprintf(stderr, "My lucky number is %d\n", 4);
I get a segmentation fault. The same doesn't happen if stdout is used instead, or if the formatting doesn't contain any variables.
That leaves me with two main questions:
Why does it only happen in three functions of my code, and not the others?
Could the creation of contexts using getcontext() and makecontext(), or the changing of contexts using setcontext() or swapcontext() mess up with the standard file descriptors?
My intuition says those functions could be responsible for that. Even more when given the fact that the three functions of my code in which this happens are functions that have contexts which other parts of the code switch to. Usually by setcontext(), though swapcontext() is used to go to the scheduler, for choosing another thread to execute.
Additionally, if that is the case, then:
What is the proper way to create threads using those functions?
I'm currently doing the following:
/*------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funct: Creates an execution context for the function and arguments passed.
Input: uc -> Pointer where the context will be created.
funct -> Function to be executed in the context.
arg -> Argument to the function.
Return: If the function succeeds, 0 will be returned. Otherwise -1.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------*/
static int create_context(ucontext_t *uc, void *funct, void *arg)
{
if(getcontext(uc) != 0) // Gets a context "model"
{
return -1;
}
stack_t *sp = (stack_t*)malloc(STACK_SIZE); // Stack area for the execution context
if(!sp) // A stack area is mandatory
{
return -1;
}
uc->uc_stack.ss_sp = sp; // Sets stack pointer
uc->uc_stack.ss_size = STACK_SIZE; // Sets stack size
uc->uc_link = &context_end; // Sets the context to go after execution
makecontext(uc, funct, 1, arg); // "Makes everything work" (can't fail)
return 0;
}
This code is probably a little modified, but it is originally an online example on how to use u_context.
Assuming glibc, the explanation is that fprintf with an unbuffered stream (such as stderr by default) internally creates an on-stack buffer which as a size of BUFSIZE bytes. See the function buffered_vfprintf in stdio-common/vfprintf.c. BUFSIZ is 8192, so you end up with a stack overflow because the stack you create is too small.

Executing code in mmap to produce executable code segfaults

I'm trying to write a function that copies a function (and ends up modify its assembly) and returns it. This works fine for one level of indirection, but at two I get a segfault.
Here is a minimum (not)working example:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <sys/mman.h>
#define BODY_SIZE 100
int f(void) { return 42; }
int (*G(void))(void) { return f; }
int (*(*H(void))(void))(void) { return G; }
int (*g(void))(void) {
void *r = mmap(0, BODY_SIZE, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE|PROT_EXEC, MAP_PRIVATE|MAP_ANONYMOUS, -1, 0);
memcpy(r, f, BODY_SIZE);
return r;
}
int (*(*h(void))(void))(void) {
void *r = mmap(0, BODY_SIZE, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE|PROT_EXEC, MAP_PRIVATE|MAP_ANONYMOUS, -1, 0);
memcpy(r, g, BODY_SIZE);
return r;
}
int main() {
printf("%d\n", f());
printf("%d\n", G()());
printf("%d\n", g()());
printf("%d\n", H()()());
printf("%d\n", h()()()); // This one fails - why?
return 0;
}
I can memcpy into an mmap'ed area once to create a valid function that can be called (g()()). But if I try to apply it again (h()()()) it segfaults. I have confirmed that it correctly creates the copied version of g, but when I execute that version I get a segfault.
Is there some reason why I can't execute code in one mmap'ed area from another mmap'ed area? From exploratory gdb-ing with x/i checks it seems like I can call down successfully, but when I return the function I came from has been erased and replaced with 0s.
How can I get this behaviour to work? Is it even possible?
BIG EDIT:
Many have asked for my rationale as I am obviously doing an XY problem here. That is true and intentional. You see, a little under a month ago this question was posted on the code golf stack exchange. It also got itself a nice bounty for a C/Assembly solution. I gave some idle thought to the problem and realized that by copying a functions body while stubbing out an address with some unique value I could search its memory for that value and replace it with a valid address, thus allowing me to effectively create lambda functions that take a single pointer as an argument. Using this I could get single currying working, but I need the more general currying. Thus my current partial solution is linked here. This is the full code that exhibits the segfault I am trying to avoid. While this is pretty much the definition of a bad idea, I find it entertaining and would like to know if my approach is viable or not. The only thing I'm missing is ability to run a function created from a function, but I can't get that to work.
The code is using relative calls to invoke mmap and memcpy so the copied code ends up calling an invalid location.
You can invoke them through a pointer, e.g.:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <sys/mman.h>
#define BODY_SIZE 100
void* (*mmap_ptr)(void *addr, size_t length, int prot, int flags,
int fd, off_t offset) = mmap;
void* (*memcpy_ptr)(void *dest, const void *src, size_t n) = memcpy;
int f(void) { return 42; }
int (*G(void))(void) { return f; }
int (*(*H(void))(void))(void) { return G; }
int (*g(void))(void) {
void *r = mmap_ptr(0, BODY_SIZE, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE|PROT_EXEC, MAP_PRIVATE|MAP_ANONYMOUS, -1, 0);
memcpy_ptr(r, f, BODY_SIZE);
return r;
}
int (*(*h(void))(void))(void) {
void *r = mmap_ptr(0, BODY_SIZE, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE|PROT_EXEC, MAP_PRIVATE|MAP_ANONYMOUS, -1, 0);
memcpy_ptr(r, g, BODY_SIZE);
return r;
}
int main() {
printf("%d\n", f());
printf("%d\n", G()());
printf("%d\n", g()());
printf("%d\n", H()()());
printf("%d\n", h()()()); // This one fails - why?
return 0;
}
I'm trying to write a function that copies a function
I think that is pragmatically not the right approach, unless you know very well machine code for your platform (and then you would not ask the question). Be aware of position independent code (useful because in general mmap(2) would use ASLR and give some "randomness" in the addresses). BTW, genuine self-modifying machine code (i.e. changing some bytes of some existing valid machine code) is today cache and branch-predictor unfriendly and should be avoided in practice.
I suggest two related approaches (choose one of them).
Generate some temporary C file (see also this), e.g. in /tmp/generated.c, then fork a compilation using gcc -Wall -g -O -fPIC /tmp/generated.c -shared -o /tmp/generated.so of it into a plugin, then dlopen(3) (for dynamic loading) that /tmp/generated.so shared object plugin (and probably use dlsym(3) to find function pointers in it...). For more about shared objects, read Drepper's How To Write Shared Libraries paper. Today, you can dlopen many hundreds of thousands of such shared libraries (see my manydl.c example) and C compilers (like recent GCC) are fast enough to compile a few thousand lines of code in a time compatible with interaction (e.g. less than a tenth of second). Generating C code is a widely used practice. In practice you would represent some AST in memory of the generated C code before emitting it.
Use some JIT compilation library, such as GCCJIT, or LLVM, or libjit, or asmjit, etc.... which would generate a function in memory, do the required relocations, and give you some pointer to it.
BTW, instead of coding in C, you might consider using some homoiconic language implementation (such as SBCL for Common Lisp, which compiles to machine code at every REPL interaction, or any dynamically contructed S-expr program representation).
The notions of closures and of callbacks are worthwhile to know. Read SICP and perhaps Lisp In Small Pieces (and of course the Dragon Book, for general compiler culture).
this question was posted on code golf.SE
I updated the 8086 16-bit code-golf answer on the sum-of-args currying question to include commented disassembly.
You might be able to use the same idea in 32-bit code with a stack-args calling convention to make a modified copy of a machine code function that tacks on a push imm32. It wouldn't be fixed-size anymore, though, so you'd need to update the function size in the copied machine code.
In normal calling conventions, the first arg is pushed last, so you can't just append another push imm32 before a fixed-size call target / leave / ret trailer. If writing a pure asm answer, you could use an alternate calling convention where args are pushed in the other order. Or you could have a fixed-size intro, then an ever-growing sequence of push imm32 + call / leave / ret.
The currying function itself could use a register-arg calling convention, even if you want the target function to use i386 System V for example (stack args).
You'd definitely want to simplify by not supporting args wider than 32 bit, so no structs by value, and no double. (Of course you could chain multiple calls to the currying function to build up a larger arg.)
Given the way the new code-golf challenge is written, I guess you'd compare the total number of curried args against the number of args the target "input" function takes.
I don't think there's any chance you can make this work in pure C with just memcpy; you have to modify the machine code.

Copy function to executable page and call

Im trying to copy a function i have to an executable page and run it from there, but i seem to be having some problems.
Here is my code:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <windows.h>
int foo()
{
return 4;
}
int goo()
{
return 5;
}
int main()
{
int foosize = (int)&goo-(int)&foo;
char* buf = VirtualAlloc(NULL, foosize, MEM_COMMIT, PAGE_EXECUTE_READWRITE);
if (buf == NULL)
{
printf("Failed\n");
return 1;
}
printf("foo %x goo %x size foo %d\n", &foo, &goo, foosize);
memcpy (buf, (void*)&foo, foosize);
int(*f)() = &foo;
int ret1 = f();
printf("ret 1 %d\n", ret1);
int(*f2)() = (int(*)())&buf;
int ret2 = f2 (); // <-- crashes here
printf("ret2 %d\n", ret2);
return 0;
}
I know some of the code is technically UB ((int)&goo-(int)&foo), but it behaves fine in this case.
My question is why is this not working as expected?
It seems to me i mapped a page as executable and copied an existing function there and im just calling it.
What am i missing?
Would this behave differently on linux with mmap?
Thanks in advance
As everyone has already stated in comments, this is totally undefined behavior and should never really expect to work. However, I played with your code some with the debugger and realized the reason it's not working (at least in Cygwin gcc compiler) is you're creating f2 incorrectly to point to the the address of the pointer storing the allocated memory, namely buf. You want to point to the memory that buf points to. Therefore, your assignment should be
int(*f2)() = (int(*)())buf;
With that change, your code executes for me. But even if it works, it might break again as soon as you make any additional changes to the program.
Well I made a try of your code with MVSC 2008 in debug mode. Compiler happens to create a jmp table with relative offsets, and &foo and &goo are just entries in that table.
So even if you have successfully created an executable buffer and copied the code (much more than was useful...) the relative jump now points to a different location and (in my example) soon fell in a int 3 trap!
TL/DR: as compiler can arrange its code at will, and as many jump use relative offsets, you cannot rely on copying executable code. It is really Undefined Behaviour:
if compiler had been smart enough to just generate something like :
mov AX, 4
ret
it could have worked
if compiler has generated more complicated code with a relative jump it just breaks
Conclusion: you can only copy executable code if you have full control on the binary machine code for example if you used assembly code and know you will have no relocation problem
You need to declare foo and goo as static or will have to disable Incremental Linking.
Incremental linking is used to shorten the linking time when building your applications, the difference between normally and incrementally linked executables is that in incrementally linked ones each function call goes through an extra JMP instruction emitted by the linker.
These JMPs allow the linker to move the functions around in memory without updating all the CALL instructions that reference the function. But it's exactly this JMP that causes problems in your case. Declaring a function as static prevents the linker from creating this extra JMP instruction.

How to make OS X malloc automatically abort on failure?

The Matasano blog calls “Checking the return value of malloc()” a “C Programming Anti-Idiom.” Instead malloc() should automatically call abort() for you if it fails. The argument is that, since you’ll usually want to abort the program if malloc() fails, that should be the default behaviour instead of something you have to laboriously type—or maybe forget to type!—every time.
Without getting into the merits of the idea, what’s the easiest way to set this up? I’m looking for something that would automatically detect memory allocation failures by other library functions such as asprintf() too. A portable solution would be wonderful, but I’d also be happy with something mac-specific.
Summarizing the best answers below:
Mac run-time solution
Set the MallocErrorAbort=1 environment variable before running your program. Automatically works for all memory allocation functions.
Mac/linux run-time solution
Use a dynamic library shim to load a custom malloc() wrapper at runtime with LD_PRELOAD or DYLD_INSERT_LIBRARIES. You will likely want to wrap calloc(), realloc(), &c. as well.
Mac/linux compiled solution
Define your own malloc() and free() functions, and access the system versions using dyld(RTLD_NEXT, "malloc") as shown here. Again, you will likely want to wrap calloc(), realloc(), &c. as well.
#include <dlfcn.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
void *(*system_malloc)(size_t) = NULL;
void* malloc(size_t bytes) {
if (system_malloc == NULL) {
system_malloc = dlsym(RTLD_NEXT, "malloc");
}
void* ret = system_malloc(bytes);
if (ret == NULL) {
perror("malloc failed, aborting");
abort();
}
return ret;
}
int main() {
void* m = malloc(10000000000000000l);
if (m == NULL) {
perror("malloc failed, program still running");
}
return 0;
}
Linux compiled solution
Use __malloc_hook and __realloc_hook as described in the glibc manual.
Mac compiled solution
Use the malloc_default_zone() function to access the heap’s data structure, unprotect the memory page, and install a hook in zone->malloc:
#include <malloc/malloc.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <sys/mman.h>
#include <unistd.h>
static void* (*system_malloc)(struct _malloc_zone_t *zone, size_t size);
static void* my_malloc(struct _malloc_zone_t *zone, size_t size) {
void* ret = system_malloc(zone, size);
if (ret == NULL) {
perror("malloc failed, aborting");
abort();
}
return ret;
}
int main() {
malloc_zone_t *zone = malloc_default_zone();
if (zone->version != 8) {
fprintf(stderr, "Unknown malloc zone version %d\n", zone->version);
abort();
}
system_malloc = zone->malloc;
if (mprotect(zone, getpagesize(), PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE) != 0) {
perror("munprotect failed");
abort();
}
zone->malloc = my_malloc;
if (mprotect(zone, getpagesize(), PROT_READ) != 0) {
perror("mprotect failed");
abort();
}
void* m = malloc(10000000000000000l);
if (m == NULL) {
perror("malloc failed, program still running");
}
return 0;
}
For completeness you will likely want to wrap calloc(), realloc(), and the other functions defined in malloc_zone_t in /usr/include/malloc/malloc.h as well.
Just wrap malloc() in some my_malloc() function that does this instead. In a lot of cases it's actually possible to handle not being able to allocate memory so this type of behaviour would be undesirable. It's easy to add functionality to malloc() but not to remove it, which is probably why it behaves this way.
Another thing to keep in mind is that this is a library you're calling into. Would you like to make a library call and have the library kill your application without you being able to have a say in it?
I guess I missed the part about asprintf but libc exports some hooks you can use (what valgrind does essentially) that let you override the malloc behavior. Here's a reference to the hooks themselves, if you know C well enough it's not hard to do.
http://www.gnu.org/savannah-checkouts/gnu/libc/manual/html_node/Hooks-for-Malloc.html
man malloc on my Mac gives the following information. It looks like you want MallocErrorAbort.
ENVIRONMENT
The following environment variables change the behavior of the allocation-related functions.
MallocLogFile <f>
Create/append messages to the given file path <f> instead of writing to the standard error.
MallocGuardEdges
If set, add a guard page before and after each large block.
MallocDoNotProtectPrelude
If set, do not add a guard page before large blocks, even if the MallocGuardEdges environment variable is set.
MallocDoNotProtectPostlude
If set, do not add a guard page after large blocks, even if the MallocGuardEdges environment variable is set.
MallocStackLogging
If set, record all stacks, so that tools like leaks can be used.
MallocStackLoggingNoCompact
If set, record all stacks in a manner that is compatible with the malloc_history program.
MallocStackLoggingDirectory
If set, records stack logs to the directory specified instead of saving them to the default location (/tmp).
MallocScribble
If set, fill memory that has been allocated with 0xaa bytes. This increases the likelihood that a program making assumptions about the contents of freshly allocated memory will fail. Also if set, fill memory that has been deallocated with 0x55 bytes. This increases the likelihood that a program will fail due to accessing memory that is no longer allocated.
MallocCheckHeapStart <s>
If set, specifies the number of allocations <s> to wait before beginning periodic heap checks every <n> as specified by MallocCheckHeapEach. If MallocCheckHeapStart is set but MallocCheckHeapEach is not specified, the default check repetition is 1000.
MallocCheckHeapEach <n>
If set, run a consistency check on the heap every <n> operations. MallocCheckHeapEach is only meaningful if MallocCheckHeapStart is also set.
MallocCheckHeapSleep <t>
Sets the number of seconds to sleep (waiting for a debugger to attach) when MallocCheckHeapStart is set and a heap corruption is detected. The default is 100 seconds. Setting this to zero means not to sleep at all. Setting this to a negative number means to sleep (for the positive number of seconds) only the very first time a heap corruption is detected.
MallocCheckHeapAbort <b>
When MallocCheckHeapStart is set and this is set to a non-zero value, causes abort(3) to be called if a heap corruption is detected, instead of any sleeping.
MallocErrorAbort
If set, causes abort(3) to be called if an error was encountered in malloc(3) or free(3), such as a calling free(3) on a pointer previously freed.
MallocCorruptionAbort
Similar to MallocErrorAbort but will not abort in out of memory conditions, making it more useful to catch only those errors which will cause memory corruption. MallocCorruptionAbort is always set on 64-bit processes.
MallocHelp
If set, print a list of environment variables that are paid heed to by the allocation-related functions, along with short descriptions. The list should correspond to this documentation.
Note the comments under MallocCorruptionAbort about the behaviour of MallocErrorAbort.
For most of my own code, I use a series of wrapper functions — emalloc(), erealloc(), ecalloc(), efree(), estrdup(), etc — that check for failed allocations (efree() is a straight pass-through function for consistency) and do not return when an allocation fails. They either exit or abort. This is basically what Jesus Ramos suggests in his answer; I agree with what he suggests.
However, not all programs can afford to have that happen. I'm just in the process of fixing up some code I wrote which does use these functions so that it can be reused in a context where it is not OK to fail to on allocation error. For its original purpose (security checks during the very early stages of process startup), it was fine to exit on error, but now it needs to be usable after the system is running, when a premature exit is not allowed. So, the code has to deal with those paths where the code used to be able to assume 'no return on allocation failure'. That's a tad painful. It can still take a conservative view; an allocation failure means the request is not safe and process it appropriately. But not all code can afford to fail with abort on memory allocation failure.

alloca over variable length arrays for character buffer

Consider this code (error checking removed for brevity):
int main()
{
int fd, nread;
struct stat st_buff;
/* Get information about the file */
stat("data",&st_buff);
/* Open file data for reading */
char strbuff[st_buff.st_blksize];
fd = open("data",O_RDONLY);
/* read and write data */
do {
nread = read(fd,strbuff,st_buff.st_blksize);
if (!nread)
break;
write(STDOUT_FILENO, strbuff, nread);
} while (nread == st_buff.st_blksize);
/* close the file */
close(fd);
return 0;
}
This code allocates memory on stack for buffer (if I am not misunderstanding something.) There is also alloca() function which I could have used for same purpose (I guess). I was wondering if there were any reason why I would want to choose one over other?
You'd generally want to use a VLA as you have above, because it's clean and standard, whereas alloca is ugly and not in the standard (well, not in the C standard, anyway -- it probably is in POSIX).
I'm pretty sure both are the same at machine-code level. Both take the memory from the stack. This has the following implications:
The esp is moved by an appropriate value.
The taken stack memory is probe'd.
The function will have to have a proper stack frame (i.e. it should use ebp to access other locals).
Both methods do this. Both don't have a "conventional" error handling (raise a SEH exception in Windows and whatever on Linux).
There is a reason to choose one over another if you mind about portability. VLAs are not standard IMHO. alloca seems somewhat more standard.
P.S. consider using malloca ?

Resources