He's a total legend, yet apparently he's never met Bill Gates in person from what he said in an interview in the Dave's Garage YouTube channel a few years ago. You'd think that someone who's been that prominent for so long in the company would have been invited to a company dinner where he was present or something.
IMHO, if something isn’t part of the contract, it should be randomized. Eg if iteration order of maps isn’t guaranteed in your language, then your language should go out of its way to randomize it. Otherwise, you end up with brittle code: code that works fine until it doesn’t.
There are various compiler options like -ftrivial-auto-var-init to initialize uninitialized variables to specific (or random) values in some situations, but overall, randomizing (or zeroing) the full content of the stack in each function call would be a horrendous performance regression and isn't done for this reason.
This compiler option causes the compiler to emit a call to a stack probe function to ensure that a sufficient amount of stack space is available.
Rather than just probe once for each stack page used, you can substitute a function that *FILLS* the stack frame with a particular value - something like 0xBAADF00D - one could set the value to anything you wanted at runtime.
This would get you similar behaviour to gcc/clang's -ftrivial-auto-var-init
Windows has started to auto-initialize most stack variables in the Windows kernel and several other areas.
The following types are automatically initialized:
Scalars (arrays, pointers, floats)
Arrays of pointers
Structures (plain-old-data structures)
The following are not automatically initialized:
Volatile variables
Arrays of anything other than pointers (i.e. array of int, array of structures, etc.)
Classes that are not plain-old-data
During initial testing where we forcibly initialized all types of data on the stack we saw performance regressions of over 10% in several key scenarios.
With POD structures only, performance was more reasonable. Compiler optimizations to eliminate redundant stores (both inside basic blocks and between basic blocks) were able to further drop the regression caused by POD structures from observable to noise-level for most tests.
We plan on revisiting zero initializing all types (especially now that our optimizer has more powerful optimizations), we just haven’t gotten to it yet.
I'm a bit distant from this stuff, but it looks like C++26 will have something like -ftrivial-auto-var-init enabled by default. See the "safe by default" section of [1].
For reference, the actual proposal that was accepted into C++26 is [2]. It discusses performance only in general, and it refers to an earlier analysis [3] for more details. This last reference describes regressions of around 0.5% in time and in code size. Earlier prototypes suggested larger regressions (perhaps even "horrendous") but more emphasis on compiler optimizations has brought the regression down considerably.
Of course one's mileage may vary, and one might also consider a 0.5% regression unacceptable. However, the C++ committee seems to have considered this to be an acceptable tradeoff to remove a frequent cause of undefined behavior from C++.
There are fast instructions (e.g., REP STOSx, AVX zero stores, dc zva) and tricks (MTE, zero pages), but no magic CPU instruction exists that transparently and efficiently randomizes or zeros the stack on function calls. You think there would be one and I bet there are on some specialized high-security systems, but I'm not sure even where you would find such a product. Telecom certainly isn't it.
it probably shouldn’t be a “release” thing. actually, certainly. i do wonder how many bugs would never have seen the light of day, if someone’s “set” actually turned out to be a sequence (i.e. allowed duplicate values) resulting in a debug build raising an assert.
Regarding contracts, there's an additional lesson here, quoting from the source:
> This is an interesting lesson in compatibility: even changes to the stack layout of the internal implementations can have compatibility implications if an application is bugged and unintentionally relies on a specific behavior.
I suppose this is why Linux kernel maintainers insist on never breaking user space.
With a sufficient number of users of an API,
it does not matter what you promise in the contract:
all observable behaviors of your system
will be depended on by somebody.
If you promise randomization, then somebody will depend on that :)
Semi-related: this type of thing is actually covered in the Site Reliability Engineering book by Google. They highlighted a case of a system that outperformed its SLO, so people depended on it having 100% uptime. They "fixed" this by injecting errors to go closer to their SLA, forcing downstream engineers to deal with the fact that the dependent services would sometimes fail for no reason.
I know it's easier said than done everywhere, just found it to be an interesting parallel.
one might argue that one of the advantages of languages like C is that you only pay for the features you choose to use, no unnecessary overhead like initializing unused variables
You can pay for those features in debug mode or in chaos monkey mode. It's okay to continue to not pay for them in release mode. Heck, Rust has this approach when it comes to handling integer overflow - fully checked in debug mode, silent wraparound in release mode.
However, the compiler does not tell you this. We're back to the problem that it's possible to have a "working" C program that relies on UB and will therefore break at some point, but the tools will not yell at you for doing this. Whereas in Java or C# you get warnings or errors for using maybe-uninitialized variables.
Also, scanf should be deprecated. Terrible API. Never use scanf or sscanf etc. We managed to get "gets()" deprecated, time to spread that to other parts of the API.
atoi() or atof() etc. work OK, but really you need a parser.
I agree, this can also detect brittle tests (e.g, test methods/classes that only pass if executed in a particular order). But applying it for all data could be expensive computation-wise
I once updated a little shy of 1mloc of Perl 5.8 code to run on Perl 5.32 (ish). There were, overall, remarkably few issues that cropped up. One of these issues (that showed itself a few times) was more or less exactly this: the iteration order through a hash is not defined. It has never been defined, but in Perl 5.8 it was consistent: for the same insertion order of the same set of keys, a hash would always iterate in the same way. In a later Perl it was deliberately randomised, not just once, but on every iteration through the hash.
It turned out there a few places that had assumed a predictable - not just stable, but deterministic - hash key iteration order. Mostly this showed up as tests that failed 50% of the time, which suggested to me a rough measure of how annoying an error is to track down is inversely correlated with how often the error appears in tests.
(Other issues were mostly due to the fact that Perl 5 is all but abandoned by its former community: a few CPAN modules are just gone, some are so far out of date that they can't be coerced to still work with other modules that have been updated over time. )
Not really the ethos of C(++), though of course this particular bug would be easily caught by running a debug build (even 20 years ago). However, this being a game "true" debug builds were probably too slow to be usable. That was at least my experience doing gamedev in that timeframe. Then again code holding up for 20 years in that line of biz is more than sufficient anyway :)
When I was doing gamedev about 5 years ago, we were still debugging with optimisation on. You get a class of bugs just from running in lower frame rates that don't happen in release.
Not necessarily; you can do a thing where it's randomized during development, testing and fuzzing but not in production builds or benchmarks so that the obvious "I rely on internal map order" bugs are spotted right away.
You can get it pretty much for free by using a random salt with your hash function. This is also useful for avoiding DOS attacks using deliberate hash collisions to trigger quadratic behavior in your hash tables.
Any sane language would design a list iterator to follow the order of the list. No, the difference is when you're iterating over orderless hash-based sets or maps/dictionaries. Many languages choose to leave the iteration order undefined. I think Python did that up to a point, but afterward they defined dictionaries (but not sets) to be iterated over in the order that keys were added. Also, some languages intentionally randomize the order per program run, to avoid things like users intentionally stuffing hash tables with colliding keys.
> Not ignore the compilation warnings – this code most likely threw a warning in the original code that was either ignored or disabled!
What compiler error would you expect here? Maybe not checking the return value from scanf to make sure it matches the number of parameters? Otherwise this seems like a data file error that the compiler would have no clue about.
The compiler has no way of knowing that the memory would be undefined, not unless it somehow can verify the data file. The most I think it can do is flag the program for not checking the return value of scanf, but even that is unlikely to be true since the program probably was checking for end of file which is also in the return value. It was failing to check the number of matched parameters. This is the kind of error that is easy to miss given the semantics of scanf.
Trying g++ version 11.4, there's no warning by default if you don't check the return value of sscanf. Even `g++ -Wall -Wextra -Wunused-result` produces no warnings for a small example.
Good point. When reading, I kind of just assumed the "use of initialised memory" warning would pick this up.
But because the whole line is parsed in a single sscanf call, the compiler's static analysis is forced to assume they have now initialised. There doesn't seem to be any generic static analysis approach that can catch this bug.
Though... you could make a specialised warning just for scanf that forced you to either pass in pre-initilized values or check the return result.
Knowing C/C++, I more or less guessed what's happening (uninitialized variable) early in the blog post.
It blows my mind that the languages allow you to leave variables uninitialized which has caused countless bugs (including production bugs that I have seen first hand), and you often need to rely on additional compiler flags or static analysis tools/valgrind etc to catch them. Even though newer languages often use a different solution (default zero value or must initialize a variable before use), people still go back to C/C++ all the time.
I don't think they will get more rare; there will always be a top % of engineers that do deep dives. I hope anyway.
But AI won't replace them, nor did the past 50+ years of software development innovation. There's millions (tens of millions?) of higher programming language developers that don't know the difference between stack or heap besides maybe some theory they half remember from school but they don't care because they don't have to think about it for their day job.
If your whole career will be using higher order languages with very little data stored on stack (vs heap), why should those programmers care? It seems like normal progression of more abstraction in the tools that we use. Similarly, I have programmed a lot of C and C++ in my career and I never once need assembly language. (I am expecting someone to pop in the convo here and tell me about how I am a terrible C/C++ programmer because I don't know any assembly.)
i think the shift will be from craftmens to trademens in regards to general software engineers, but these are type of writes up stem of a artisan style all to its own.
We have been seeing this shift for a while, where "software engineers" graduate from 3 month bootcamps. Except now most likely they will not be earning 500k making crud apps.
What about the incredible front end Devs that only know JS/CSS/HTML? They can still be true craftspeople in their art, be it cross-browser/platform issues or performance tweaking.
When I worked at Microsoft and I had downtime I would sometimes read the code for app compatibility shims out of pure curiosity.
Win9x video games that made bad assumptions about the stack were a theme I saw. One of the differences between win9x and NT based windows is that kernel32 (later kernelbase) is a now user mode wrapper atop ntdll, whereas in the olden days kernel32 would trap directly into the kernel. This means that kernel32 uses more user mode stack space in NT. A badly behaving app that stored data to the left of the stack pointer and called into kernel32 might see its data structures clobbered in NT and not in 9x. So there were compatibility hacks that temporarily moved the stack pointer for certain apps.
> all these findings prove that the bug is NOT an issue with Windows 11 24H2, as things like the way the stack is used by internal WinAPI functions are not contractual and they may change at any time, with no prior notice.
This reminds me of an excellent article I read a while back, the gist of it was that, given sufficient success, there's no such thing as a private API.
My takeaway, speaking as someone who leans towards functional programming and immutability, is "this is yet another example of a mutability problem that could never happen in a functional context"
(so, for example, this bug would have never been created by Rust unless it was deeply misused)
I think the response to that would be: yes but the game would simply not have been made if it wasn't written in C++. That's not to say you couldn't or that you can't make something like GTA:SA in Rust in 2025 or in a safer different language in the early 2000s. It just would take a great deal more time and expense as you'd have needed to construct a lot of tooling and do a lot of training to ensure all of the employees were up to speed before getting started. C++ was, and I think to some extent still is, the lingua franca of the gaming industry - there are some fun exceptions (Naughty Dog implementing much of Crash Bandicoot in a home-grown LISP, and presumably dozens or hundreds of DSLs and other little bespoke scripting languages in use at other studios).
And that's not to mention the uncomfortable truth that while doing this correctly in something like Rust may very well take less effort overall than in C++, that is not the bar we are aiming to clear. They wanted to implement something that was correct-enough, and given that this bug wasn't hit for 20+ years and that the game was a roaring success on all the major platforms - I think that was the right decision.
This is more of a problem of the C/C++ standard that it allows uninitialized variables but doesn't give them defined values, considering it "undefined behavior" to read from an uninitialized variable. Java, for example, doesn't have this particular problem because it does specify default values for variables.
But it's this and many other features of C/C++ that make it faster than Java. C/C++ developers really don't want to "pay" for something for safety.
Though, I really like the _mm_undefined_ps() intrinsics for SSE that make it clear that you're purposefully not initialising a variable. Something like that for ints and floats would be pretty sweet.
FWIW I think a linter or other similar code quality checker would have caught this as well. From a practical perspective (e.g., how do you prevent this from happening again in your game studio's multi-million line code base) that would have been the right thing to do here.
The code would have failed because you can't use an uninitialized variable, so you would have had to set it to a default. You don't just get random garbage from the stack.
It would have forced you to either specify a default or fail pretty loudly as soon as you launched the game, both much better than leaving a bug there just for it to resurface 20 years later.
Most popular languages would prevent this. In this case it’s as simple as having more sensible reader API than sscanf in standard library and forcing variables to be initialized.
I'd actually say that Rust is a third option between "everything is immutable" and "mutable soup". Rust is more of "one mutator at a time". Because, Rust really embraces being able to mutate stuff (so not functional in that sense), it just makes sure that it's in a controlled way.
If your attitude is just "I'm not going to use abc because too many people say it's good", without even just trying that out first hand to verify those claims, I don't think you can go very far in your technical skills.
The best engineers I know are open to everything and played with almost every tool/language/whatever to form (sorry) informed opinions about them. They often know what they are talking about, and they choose the best tool for the job.
While they did mention rust, the actual suggestion was "functional programming and immutability", which to me suggests several other languages first and makes it not really rust evangelism.
Could you elaborate? I cannot see how a functional programming language would have protected you from reading a non existing value while not providing a default
It's more that functional languages just happen to be stricter in various ways that would've mitigated against this. You could quite happily design a functional language that has an unsafe equivalent to sscanf in its stdlib, or has big parts of the spec which are "undefined behaviour" that may differ depending on the underlying OS/compiler/runtime/stdlib in use. But the more popular functional languages have gained traction in part because they tend to have a "if you model the types correctly, the program basically works" philosophy around them. I don't think things like Haskell, Ocaml or F# would allow this if you wrote idiomatic code, you'd probably need to do something a little hacky or sketchy.
It simply would not have allowed you to write code which did that. And you wouldn't have a function like sscanf() either. You'd probably end up with a much more normal looking parser function that returned a value-or-error type.
I've never heard of a functional language that would allow you to initialize a value to whatever value the system memory already had in that memory location. In languages that allow nil, it would at least be nil; in languages that don't, you would have gotten an error about an uninitialized and undefaulted value. In any typed language, you would have also gotten an error.
It's true that C may be unique-ish in this regard though- this bug also couldn't happen in Ruby, which is not a functional language, but Ruby certainly still makes undefined behaviors much more possible than in other languages like Elixir.
> all these findings prove that the bug is NOT an issue with Windows 11 24H2, as things like the way the stack is used by internal WinAPI functions are not contractual and they may change at any time, with no prior notice. The real issue here is the game relying on undefined behavior (uninitialized local variables), and to be honest, I’m shocked that the game didn’t hit this bug on so many OS versions, although as I pointed out earlier, it was extremely close
This sentence is the real takeaway point of the article. Undefined behavior is extremely insidious and can lull you into the belief that you were right, when you already made a mistake 1000 steps ago but it only got triggered now.
I emphasized this point in my article from years ago (but after the game was released):
> When a C or C++ program triggers undefined behavior, anything is allowed to happen in the program execution. And by anything, I really mean anything: The program can crash with an error message, it can silently corrupt data, it can morph into a colorful video game, or it can even give the right result.
> If you’re lucky, the program triggering UB will show an appropriate error message and/or crash, making you immediately aware that something went wrong. If you’re unlucky, the program will quietly mangle data, and by the time you notice the problem (via effects such as crashes or incorrect output) the root cause has been buried in the past execution history. And if you’re very unlucky, the program will do exactly what you hoped it should do, until you change some unrelated code / compiler versions / compiler vendors / operating systems / hardware platforms – and then a new bug becomes visible, and you have no clue why seemingly correct code now fails to work properly.
As I wrote in my article, this point really got hammered into me when a coworker showed me a patch that he made - which added a couple of innocuous, totally correct print statements to an existing C++ program - and that triggered a crash. But without his print statements, there was no crash. It turned out that there was a preexisting out-of-bounds array write, and the layout of the stack/heap somehow masked that problem before, and his unlucky prints unmasked the problem.
Okay so then, how can we do better as developers today?
0) Read, understand, and memorize what actions in C or C++ are undefined behavior. Avoid them in your code at all costs. Also obey the preconditions of any API you use, whether in the standard library, operating system, etc.
1) Compile your application in Debug mode and compare its behavior to Release mode. If they differ by anything other than speed, then you have a serious problem on your hands.
2) Compile and run with sanitizers like -fsanitize=undefined,address to catch undefined behavior at runtime.
3) Use managed languages like Java, C#, Python, etc. where you basically don't have to worry about UB in normal day-to-day code. Or use very well-designed low-level languages like Rust that are safe by default and minimize your exposure to UB when you really need to do advanced things. Whereas C and C++ have been a bonanza of UB like we have never seen before in any other language.
Other than C#, there is no reason to use those other languages for game dev. Unless the game is fairly simple, or you want to risk a fairly long project by employing a language that hasn't been proven in tge space yet (Rust). No shade at any of those languages, I don't even like C#, just being pragmatic.
I would add: code defensively. Initialize your variables (either to a sensible value, or an outrageously wrong value) before passing pointers to them, even when you "know" that the value will be overwritten. Check for errors. Always consider what happens when things go wrong, not just when things go right. Any time you find yourself thinking, "condition X is guaranteed to hold, so I don't need to check for it" consider checking it anyway just in case you're wrong about that, or it changes later.
My only issue with defensive codding is that often it doesn't play nice with code coverage requirements. I've been in situations where I would like to add defensive coding just in case, but then the PR doesn't pass the coverage checks. The best is when you can ensure via th compiler (e.g. via the type system) that a case is impossible, but C++ (in my case) isn't perfect for this.
All this is true. Note also that the C++ folks are putting a serious effort into reducing UB. See the "safe by default" section of this writeup [1]. See also my other comment [2] regarding the performance impact of this sort of change. Short answer: with sufficient optimization, smaller than one might think.
I learned this lesson many moons ago, on a Fortran code I wrote for a university assignment. It was a basic genetic algorithm, and for some reason it was converging much more slowly than expected. So I was sprinkling some WRITEs to debug, and suddenly the code converged a hundred times faster.
IIRC the whole parsing performance issue was because the original code was written for the SP campaign of GTA5 that only had a handful of objects to parse data for. That was barely a blip in terms of performance impact and AFAIK was written years before GTAOnline was made (where it became an issue - and even then only became an issue much after GTAOnline was first made).
Writing some simple code that works with the data you expect to have without bothering with optimizations is fine, if anything it is one of the actual cases of "premature optimization": even with profiling no real time is spent on that code, your data wont make it spend any time and you should avoid wild guesses since chances are you'll be wrong (even if in this case it could be a correct guess, it'd be like a broken clock guessing the time is always 13:37).
The actual issue with that code was that, after they reused it for GTAOnline and started becoming a performance issue after some time as they added more objects, nobody thought to try and see what is wrong.
They were not the only one to make that mistake e.g. rapidjson had to fix the same error, few people expect parsing one token out of sscanf to strlen the entire input (not only that but there are c++ APIs which call sscanf under the hood).
The second error of deduplicating values by linear scanning an array was way more egregious.
I'm willing to bet it was was done for performance reasons, subtraction is cheaper than float point division. Probably the compiler also has some tricks to optimize this further.
There is absolutely no way this could turn into an infinite loop. It could underflow, but for that to happen angle would have to be less than the 2*pi, therefore exiting the loop.
The article discusses how that turns into an infinite loop and causes a hang.
When you subtract a small float from a very large float, the value doesn't change. This is because the "steps" between float values increase with the size of the value (i.e. floats have coarser resolution for larger magnitudes)
To see this in action, try running the following in a JavaScript interpreter:
Once this category of error is raised to your attention, you start to notice it more and more.
A little piece of technology made sense in the original context, but then it got moved to a different context without realizing that move broke the contract. Specifically in this case a flying boat became an airplane.
---
I recently worked a bug that feels very similar:
A linux cups printer would not print to the selected tray, instead it always requested manual feed.
Ok. Try a bunch of command line options, same issue.
Ok. Make the selection directly in the PPD (postscript printer definition) file. Same issue.
Ok! Decompile the PXL file. Wrong tray is set in pxl file... why?
Check Debug2 log level for cups - Wrong MediaPosition is being sent to ghostscript (which compiles the printer options into the print job) by a cups filter... why?
Cups filter is translating the MediaPosition from the PPD file... because the philosophy of cups is to do what the user intended. The intention inferred from MediaPosition in the PPD file (postscript printer definition) is that the MediaPosition corresponds to the PWG (Printer Working Group) MediaPosition, NOT the vendor MediaPosition (or local equivalent - in this case MediaSource).
AHA!! My PPD file had been copied from a previous generation of server, from a time when that cups filter did NOT translate the MediaPosition, so the VENDOR MediaSource numbers were used. Historically, this makes sense. The vendor tray number is set in the vendor ppd file because cups didn't know how to translate that.
Fast forward to a new execution context, and cups filters have gotten better at translating user intention, now it's translating a number that doesn't need to be translated, and silently selecting the wrong tray.
TLDR; There is no such thing as a printer command, only printer suggestions.
I always wonder, why not write these games on top of a virtual machine like Carmack started doing in Quake, a usage he then later extended to quake 2 and 3 [1].
I'm ignorant about game development, virtual machines and system programming but from the little I understand it seems a sensible choice to make.
While there is an initial price to pay modeling 99% of the game to be implemented on a user-implemented stack seems a sensible approach to me.
This is a game; I don't think a debug configuration (with checks for things like this enabled) would run fast enough to be playable on contemporary hardware.
Generally, game console "debug" configurations aren't "true" debug like most people think of -- optimizations are still globally enabled, but the build generally has a number of debug systems enabled that naturally require the use of a devkit. Devkits, especially back then, generally had 2-3x as much memory as retail systems -- so you'd happily sacrifice framerate during feature development to have those systems enabled.
Debugging was (and still is) generally done on optimized builds and, once you know the general area of the problem, you simply disable optimizations for that file or subsystem if you can't pinpoint the issue in an optimized build.
The biggest performance hit, in general, comes from disabling optimizations in the compiler. I say "in general" because there are systems that might be used to find this kind of thing that DO make a game wholly unplayable, such as a stomp allocator. Of course, you wouldn't generally enable a stomp allocator across all your allocations unless you're desperate, so you could still have that enabled to find this kind of bug and end up with a playable game.
The more likely reason here is that no one noticed or cared. GTA:SA is 21 years old and this bug doesn't affect the Xbox or other versions.
Problem with valgrind/asan/msan is that you have to start using these tools early in the development process. It can't be a "checklist" item before launch, or you'll have an insurmountable number of bugs, often with them baked in such that fixing the bug causes additional changes that introduce unrelated bugs.
The core problem is some compilers initialising memory to zero in Debug mode, masking behaviour of unitialised data, since in most cases zero is a legit value. In Release mode, this zeroing doesn’t happen.
Devs need to be aware that the following C++ initisliser exists which zeros data structures for you:
It has always been too easy to read & write beyond the stack. This should fail, plain and simple.
Mitigations exist - ASLR, NX pages, stack-smashing protection etc. but nothing comprehensively stops reads of stale data beyond the stack.
Thought experiment for a moment. What if the hardware ensures the unused part of a stack region cannot be read or written.
There are many ways to skin this cat, here’s one based around tracking each stack’s start address A, size S, and current depth D
1. Add an instruction to inform the CPU there is a stack at address A of size S. Its depth D is initially 0.
2. Add a jump instruction which reserves N bytes on the stack at address A, growing depth D to (D+N). Maybe this can be its own “reserve” instruction so as not to need a new jump instruction.
3. Give existing return instructions stack awareness. If returning to an address inside a stack, un-reserve the bytes reserved by the most recent jump, making the new depth (D-N).
4. Fail reads or writes to the stack region beyond its current depth. In other words fail all reads and writes between A+S-D and A+S.
5. The arithmetic is reversed on architectures whose stacks grow downwards.
Downsides I can see:
It cements one calling convention. The CPU memory manager will need a lot of state per stack, of which there are many per process: address A, size S, current depth D, plus a reservation stack - ie. sizes of each frame’s stack memory. That’s a lot of bookkeeping! It’s far from zero cost. The limits of how much bookkeeping the CPU can do impose limits on how deep a stack can go and how many stacks are supported - so when there are too many stacks or one goes too deep, either the CPU needs to signal failure or engage a fallback mode and revert to behaving as CPUs do today. And of course fallback puts things back to the start. It’d therefore only mitigate situations in which an attacker cannot control the depth of the stack / a bug always happens inside the max depth the CPU can bookkeep for.
That said, stacks are ubiquitous! Hardware stack awareness opens up all kinds of new mitigations.
This bug wasn't caused by a read beyond the current bounds of the stack, but a stale value from a prior call to the same function at the exact same location on the stack. Buffer-overflow protections like you describe wouldn't help here.
Any solution I can think of uses a lot of resources. Those sort of methods are useful in some contexts, such as highly secure operations, but seem very excessive for the sort of abuse and leak encountered in this example.
On Windows 11 24H2, more stack space was modified by a new implementation of Critical Sections.
IMHO this shows the downfall of Microsoft. Why did they do that? Critical sections have been there for many decades and should be basically bug-free by now. My best guess is someone thought they'd "improve" things and rewrote it, then made some microbenchmark that maybe showed the dubious improvement.
The other comment here mentions Raymond Chen, who wrote this article about why backwards-compatibility is very important (and arguably what got Microsoft into the position it's in today):
Surprised to see the return value of sscanf being ignored, that seems like a pretty rookie mistake, and this bug would never have made it out of the original programmer's system if they had bothered to check it.
Yes, it would have made it out of the original programmer's system for that initial commit.
FTA:
I have a likely explanation for why Rockstar made this specific mistake in the data to begin with – in Vice City, Skimmer was defined as a boat, and therefore did not have those values defined by design! When in San Andreas they changed Skimmer’s vehicle type to a plane, someone forgot to add those now-required extra parameters. Since this game seldom verifies the completeness of its data, this mistake simply slipped under the radar.
So the original code (or at least a working code + data version) in GTA Vice City had no visible problems, at least with the Skimmer object, since the vehicles.ide file had the correct number of values for the Skimmer boat object.
Someone changed the Skimmer object from a boat to a plane for GTA San Andreas, BUT they DID NOT update the object to have the REQUIRED wheel values for a plane object.
Now the GTA code is expecting more values than it gets.
The vehicles.ide wasn't validated for correctness after the Skimmer object change to plane. Maybe there are more gotchas in that file...
At least users can fix the problem with a text editor instead of waiting and hoping that RockStar would fix the problem and release an update.
tl;dr of the explanation: the Skimmer vehicle is missing a wheel scale definition, so its wheel scale gets read from uninitialized memory. On previous versions of Windows, this happened to be the wheel scale of the previously-loaded vehicle, so things happened to work fine. Starting on Windows 11 24H2, LeaveCriticalSection (which gets called between loading vehicles) uses more stack space than before, so it now overwrites that memory with a gigantic value, resulting in the Skimmer spawning so high up that it may as well not exist at all.
SilentPatch (for GTAs, at least) specifically is a code-only mod, such that the single .asi file can be removed to uninstall it & all it's changes.
A real update should fix both (note: I don't believe the later releases did, they also just added defaults to the parser) but for SilentPatch: a mod is not a real update, and being as simple as possible to remove & reducing conflicts with other mods is more important here than a fix that digs as deep as possible.
I hope someone can figure out the Red Dead Redemption 2 bug where random animals and characters disappear silently if you have too many texture mods installed.
They wrote a JSON “parser” using sscanf. sscanf is not bulletproof! Just use an open source library instead of writing something yourself. You will still be a real programmer, but you will finish your game sooner and you won't have embarrassing stories written about you.
Putting the (very valid) reasons for not having human-readable game saves aside, are you sure it's worse than using a 3rd party library that's built to accept semi-valid input values, possibly evaluates user input in some way and has difficult to debug bugs that occur only under certain inputs? I agree that writing a stable and safe parser for a binary data file isn't easy, but there's less things that can go wrong when you can hardcode it to reject any remotely suspicious input. Third party XML/JSON libraries OTOH try to interpret as much as possible, even when the values are bogus. Also no need to deal with different text encoding bugs, line endings...
You misunderstood. Game developers should use a _good_ third–party library, not a _bad_ one. At a minimum they should be able to read the source code so that they know it is good. Thus open source libraries should be at the top of the list.
If you don't know what “good” looks like, take a look at [Serde](https://serde.rs/). It’s for Rust, but its features and overall design are something you should attempt to approach no matter what language you’re writing in.
After finishing the article I immediately did ctrl+f "rust" and was disappointed to not see any of the results I wanted, but actually this comment is more hilarious than anyone saying "why didnt rockstar use rust in 2004!!!1111!!???" it's a bit more of a sophisticated joke since there's an IYKYK factor but it is no less hilarious. Bravo sir, bravo.
To u/db48x whose post got flagged and doesn't reappear despite me vouching for it as I think they have a point (at least for modern games): GTA San Andreas was released in 2004. Back then, YAML was in its infancy (2001) and JSON was only standardized informally in 2006, and XML wasn't something widely used outside of the Java world.
On top of that, the hardware requirements (256MB of system RAM, and the PlayStation 2 only had 32MB) made it enough of a challenge to get the game running at all. Throwing in a heavyweight parsing library for either of these three languages was out of the question.
The comment reappeared, and while you're right about using proper libraries to handle data, it doesn't excuse the "undefined behavior (uninitialized local variables)" that I still see all the time despite all the warning and error flags that can be fed to the compiler.
Most of the time, the programmers who do this do not follow the simple rule that Stroustrup said which is to define or initialize a variable where you declare it (i.e. declare it before using it), and which would solve a lot of bugs in C++.
JSON didn't save them: This is the same studio that handrolled a JSON parser with accidentally quadratic time complexity, making most players wait 3 to 10 minutes to load GTA Online, for 7 years, until a player got tired and found the root cause.
You’re not entirely wrong, but a library doesn’t have to be “heavyweight” in order to be bulletproof. And you can load the library during startup and then unload it after; it doesn’t have to stick around for the whole run time of the game. Modern OSes will reclaim the pages after you stop using them, if there is memory pressure. Of course the PS2 didn’t do that I am sure.
Wow I had no idea YAML was that old. I always thought it was created some time around when CI/CD became popular. Now I'm really curious how it ended up as a superset of JSON.
The flaw isn't the language. The issue is a 0.5x programmer not knowing to avoid sscanf() and failing to default and validate the results. This could be handled competently with strtok() parsing the lines without needing a more complicated file format.
This is the kind of thing I'd expect from Raymond Chen - which is extremely high praise!
I'm glad they tracked it down even further to figure out exactly why.
Or randomascii. A freaking legend (although he had a heart braking streak of bad events ... I wish him the best)
What happened to him?
5 replies →
Raymond is a wizard. Read his blogs for many years and love his style and knowledge.
He's a total legend, yet apparently he's never met Bill Gates in person from what he said in an interview in the Dave's Garage YouTube channel a few years ago. You'd think that someone who's been that prominent for so long in the company would have been invited to a company dinner where he was present or something.
1 reply →
Small thing but I love the effort he puts into actually coding up his examples instead of screenshots. For example: https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20250414-00/?p=11...
He has many better ones but that's the latest one I've seen
Raymond knows everything. From microcode bugs on Alpha AXP to template meta programming to UI.
3 replies →
IMHO, if something isn’t part of the contract, it should be randomized. Eg if iteration order of maps isn’t guaranteed in your language, then your language should go out of its way to randomize it. Otherwise, you end up with brittle code: code that works fine until it doesn’t.
There are various compiler options like -ftrivial-auto-var-init to initialize uninitialized variables to specific (or random) values in some situations, but overall, randomizing (or zeroing) the full content of the stack in each function call would be a horrendous performance regression and isn't done for this reason.
Microsoft's Visual C++ compiler has the /Ge compiler option ( see https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/cpp/build/reference/ge-ena... ) Deprecated since VC2005.
This compiler option causes the compiler to emit a call to a stack probe function to ensure that a sufficient amount of stack space is available.
Rather than just probe once for each stack page used, you can substitute a function that *FILLS* the stack frame with a particular value - something like 0xBAADF00D - one could set the value to anything you wanted at runtime.
This would get you similar behaviour to gcc/clang's -ftrivial-auto-var-init
Windows has started to auto-initialize most stack variables in the Windows kernel and several other areas.
see https://web.archive.org/web/20200518153645/https://msrc-blog...
I'm a bit distant from this stuff, but it looks like C++26 will have something like -ftrivial-auto-var-init enabled by default. See the "safe by default" section of [1].
For reference, the actual proposal that was accepted into C++26 is [2]. It discusses performance only in general, and it refers to an earlier analysis [3] for more details. This last reference describes regressions of around 0.5% in time and in code size. Earlier prototypes suggested larger regressions (perhaps even "horrendous") but more emphasis on compiler optimizations has brought the regression down considerably.
Of course one's mileage may vary, and one might also consider a 0.5% regression unacceptable. However, the C++ committee seems to have considered this to be an acceptable tradeoff to remove a frequent cause of undefined behavior from C++.
[1]: https://herbsutter.com/2024/08/07/reader-qa-what-does-it-mea...
[2]: https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2024/p27...
[3]: https://open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2023/p2723r1...
There are fast instructions (e.g., REP STOSx, AVX zero stores, dc zva) and tricks (MTE, zero pages), but no magic CPU instruction exists that transparently and efficiently randomizes or zeros the stack on function calls. You think there would be one and I bet there are on some specialized high-security systems, but I'm not sure even where you would find such a product. Telecom certainly isn't it.
4 replies →
Randomization at this level would be too expensive. There are tools that do this for debug purposes, and your stuff runs a lot slower in that mode.
I had to Google to find the tid bit that I read about Perl years ago. I think this will affect iteration order of dicts.
it probably shouldn’t be a “release” thing. actually, certainly. i do wonder how many bugs would never have seen the light of day, if someone’s “set” actually turned out to be a sequence (i.e. allowed duplicate values) resulting in a debug build raising an assert.
2 replies →
Regarding contracts, there's an additional lesson here, quoting from the source:
> This is an interesting lesson in compatibility: even changes to the stack layout of the internal implementations can have compatibility implications if an application is bugged and unintentionally relies on a specific behavior.
I suppose this is why Linux kernel maintainers insist on never breaking user space.
But the linux equivalent here would be glibc, not the kernel
Nope. You have to remember https://www.hyrumslaw.com/
If you promise randomization, then somebody will depend on that :)
And then you can never remove it!
Semi-related: this type of thing is actually covered in the Site Reliability Engineering book by Google. They highlighted a case of a system that outperformed its SLO, so people depended on it having 100% uptime. They "fixed" this by injecting errors to go closer to their SLA, forcing downstream engineers to deal with the fact that the dependent services would sometimes fail for no reason.
I know it's easier said than done everywhere, just found it to be an interesting parallel.
> If you promise randomization
You don't. You say the order is undefined.
4 replies →
one might argue that one of the advantages of languages like C is that you only pay for the features you choose to use, no unnecessary overhead like initializing unused variables
You can pay for those features in debug mode or in chaos monkey mode. It's okay to continue to not pay for them in release mode. Heck, Rust has this approach when it comes to handling integer overflow - fully checked in debug mode, silent wraparound in release mode.
2 replies →
However, the compiler does not tell you this. We're back to the problem that it's possible to have a "working" C program that relies on UB and will therefore break at some point, but the tools will not yell at you for doing this. Whereas in Java or C# you get warnings or errors for using maybe-uninitialized variables.
Also, scanf should be deprecated. Terrible API. Never use scanf or sscanf etc. We managed to get "gets()" deprecated, time to spread that to other parts of the API.
atoi() or atof() etc. work OK, but really you need a parser.
I agree, this can also detect brittle tests (e.g, test methods/classes that only pass if executed in a particular order). But applying it for all data could be expensive computation-wise
I once updated a little shy of 1mloc of Perl 5.8 code to run on Perl 5.32 (ish). There were, overall, remarkably few issues that cropped up. One of these issues (that showed itself a few times) was more or less exactly this: the iteration order through a hash is not defined. It has never been defined, but in Perl 5.8 it was consistent: for the same insertion order of the same set of keys, a hash would always iterate in the same way. In a later Perl it was deliberately randomised, not just once, but on every iteration through the hash.
It turned out there a few places that had assumed a predictable - not just stable, but deterministic - hash key iteration order. Mostly this showed up as tests that failed 50% of the time, which suggested to me a rough measure of how annoying an error is to track down is inversely correlated with how often the error appears in tests.
(Other issues were mostly due to the fact that Perl 5 is all but abandoned by its former community: a few CPAN modules are just gone, some are so far out of date that they can't be coerced to still work with other modules that have been updated over time. )
At booking.com? :)
Not really the ethos of C(++), though of course this particular bug would be easily caught by running a debug build (even 20 years ago). However, this being a game "true" debug builds were probably too slow to be usable. That was at least my experience doing gamedev in that timeframe. Then again code holding up for 20 years in that line of biz is more than sufficient anyway :)
When I was doing gamedev about 5 years ago, we were still debugging with optimisation on. You get a class of bugs just from running in lower frame rates that don't happen in release.
Aren't you just creating another contract? Users might write code that depends on it being random.
Maybe it would be good to change all non promised things between releases. So that such unwritten rules never become something users rely upon.
For those users, do this instead: https://xkcd.com/221/
Then you are wasting runtime clock cycles randomizing lists.
Not necessarily; you can do a thing where it's randomized during development, testing and fuzzing but not in production builds or benchmarks so that the obvious "I rely on internal map order" bugs are spotted right away.
You can get it pretty much for free by using a random salt with your hash function. This is also useful for avoiding DOS attacks using deliberate hash collisions to trigger quadratic behavior in your hash tables.
Any sane language would design a list iterator to follow the order of the list. No, the difference is when you're iterating over orderless hash-based sets or maps/dictionaries. Many languages choose to leave the iteration order undefined. I think Python did that up to a point, but afterward they defined dictionaries (but not sets) to be iterated over in the order that keys were added. Also, some languages intentionally randomize the order per program run, to avoid things like users intentionally stuffing hash tables with colliding keys.
3 replies →
iirc, Go intentionally randomizes map ordering for just this reason.
Yep, and then you get crash reports you can’t reproduce.
1 reply →
> Not ignore the compilation warnings – this code most likely threw a warning in the original code that was either ignored or disabled!
What compiler error would you expect here? Maybe not checking the return value from scanf to make sure it matches the number of parameters? Otherwise this seems like a data file error that the compiler would have no clue about.
Undefined behavior to access the uninitialized memory. A sanitizer would have flagged that.
The compiler has no way of knowing that the memory would be undefined, not unless it somehow can verify the data file. The most I think it can do is flag the program for not checking the return value of scanf, but even that is unlikely to be true since the program probably was checking for end of file which is also in the return value. It was failing to check the number of matched parameters. This is the kind of error that is easy to miss given the semantics of scanf.
12 replies →
Yeah, the debugging here is great, but the actual cause is super mild.
Trying g++ version 11.4, there's no warning by default if you don't check the return value of sscanf. Even `g++ -Wall -Wextra -Wunused-result` produces no warnings for a small example.
Good point. When reading, I kind of just assumed the "use of initialised memory" warning would pick this up.
But because the whole line is parsed in a single sscanf call, the compiler's static analysis is forced to assume they have now initialised. There doesn't seem to be any generic static analysis approach that can catch this bug.
Though... you could make a specialised warning just for scanf that forced you to either pass in pre-initilized values or check the return result.
Knowing C/C++, I more or less guessed what's happening (uninitialized variable) early in the blog post.
It blows my mind that the languages allow you to leave variables uninitialized which has caused countless bugs (including production bugs that I have seen first hand), and you often need to rely on additional compiler flags or static analysis tools/valgrind etc to catch them. Even though newer languages often use a different solution (default zero value or must initialize a variable before use), people still go back to C/C++ all the time.
I always enjoy reading deeply technical writeups like these. I only wonder how much more rare they may or may not get in the AI era.
I don't think they will get more rare; there will always be a top % of engineers that do deep dives. I hope anyway.
But AI won't replace them, nor did the past 50+ years of software development innovation. There's millions (tens of millions?) of higher programming language developers that don't know the difference between stack or heap besides maybe some theory they half remember from school but they don't care because they don't have to think about it for their day job.
If your whole career will be using higher order languages with very little data stored on stack (vs heap), why should those programmers care? It seems like normal progression of more abstraction in the tools that we use. Similarly, I have programmed a lot of C and C++ in my career and I never once need assembly language. (I am expecting someone to pop in the convo here and tell me about how I am a terrible C/C++ programmer because I don't know any assembly.)
i think the shift will be from craftmens to trademens in regards to general software engineers, but these are type of writes up stem of a artisan style all to its own.
We have been seeing this shift for a while, where "software engineers" graduate from 3 month bootcamps. Except now most likely they will not be earning 500k making crud apps.
2 replies →
What about the incredible front end Devs that only know JS/CSS/HTML? They can still be true craftspeople in their art, be it cross-browser/platform issues or performance tweaking.
Compare python devs of today to fortran devs of the 60s. Something like that distance. Maybe more. But the trend isnt new.
I'm more curious in what changed with the critical section locking/unlocking implementation in this version of Windows!
It looks like the utilized stack, or a stack protection area, increased.
When I worked at Microsoft and I had downtime I would sometimes read the code for app compatibility shims out of pure curiosity.
Win9x video games that made bad assumptions about the stack were a theme I saw. One of the differences between win9x and NT based windows is that kernel32 (later kernelbase) is a now user mode wrapper atop ntdll, whereas in the olden days kernel32 would trap directly into the kernel. This means that kernel32 uses more user mode stack space in NT. A badly behaving app that stored data to the left of the stack pointer and called into kernel32 might see its data structures clobbered in NT and not in 9x. So there were compatibility hacks that temporarily moved the stack pointer for certain apps.
4 replies →
Okay, but why did `LeaveCriticalSection` change? Compiler changes, new features, refactoring, etc? That’s the most interesting part (and absent)!
> all these findings prove that the bug is NOT an issue with Windows 11 24H2, as things like the way the stack is used by internal WinAPI functions are not contractual and they may change at any time, with no prior notice.
This reminds me of an excellent article I read a while back, the gist of it was that, given sufficient success, there's no such thing as a private API.
I know there’s an XKCD comic about this
Just bring back spacebar heating
https://xkcd.com/1172/
For anyone with access issues
https://web.archive.org/web/20250423144746/https://cookieplm...
Maybe it’s the real reason why CJ couldn’t follow the dang train.
My takeaway, speaking as someone who leans towards functional programming and immutability, is "this is yet another example of a mutability problem that could never happen in a functional context"
(so, for example, this bug would have never been created by Rust unless it was deeply misused)
I think the response to that would be: yes but the game would simply not have been made if it wasn't written in C++. That's not to say you couldn't or that you can't make something like GTA:SA in Rust in 2025 or in a safer different language in the early 2000s. It just would take a great deal more time and expense as you'd have needed to construct a lot of tooling and do a lot of training to ensure all of the employees were up to speed before getting started. C++ was, and I think to some extent still is, the lingua franca of the gaming industry - there are some fun exceptions (Naughty Dog implementing much of Crash Bandicoot in a home-grown LISP, and presumably dozens or hundreds of DSLs and other little bespoke scripting languages in use at other studios).
And that's not to mention the uncomfortable truth that while doing this correctly in something like Rust may very well take less effort overall than in C++, that is not the bar we are aiming to clear. They wanted to implement something that was correct-enough, and given that this bug wasn't hit for 20+ years and that the game was a roaring success on all the major platforms - I think that was the right decision.
This is more of a problem of the C/C++ standard that it allows uninitialized variables but doesn't give them defined values, considering it "undefined behavior" to read from an uninitialized variable. Java, for example, doesn't have this particular problem because it does specify default values for variables.
But it's this and many other features of C/C++ that make it faster than Java. C/C++ developers really don't want to "pay" for something for safety.
Though, I really like the _mm_undefined_ps() intrinsics for SSE that make it clear that you're purposefully not initialising a variable. Something like that for ints and floats would be pretty sweet.
3 replies →
FWIW I think a linter or other similar code quality checker would have caught this as well. From a practical perspective (e.g., how do you prevent this from happening again in your game studio's multi-million line code base) that would have been the right thing to do here.
Rust protects you from external file data you read being incorrect?
That's one hell of a language!
The code would have failed because you can't use an uninitialized variable, so you would have had to set it to a default. You don't just get random garbage from the stack.
You didn't actually understand what the post is about. Maybe read it again.
It would have forced you to either specify a default or fail pretty loudly as soon as you launched the game, both much better than leaving a bug there just for it to resurface 20 years later.
Most popular languages would prevent this. In this case it’s as simple as having more sensible reader API than sscanf in standard library and forcing variables to be initialized.
Of course not, but this here was a memory access error and rust would have prevented this.
I'd actually say that Rust is a third option between "everything is immutable" and "mutable soup". Rust is more of "one mutator at a time". Because, Rust really embraces being able to mutate stuff (so not functional in that sense), it just makes sure that it's in a controlled way.
The constant rust evangelism on this site is such a turn off from actually wanting to use the language.
If your attitude is just "I'm not going to use abc because too many people say it's good", without even just trying that out first hand to verify those claims, I don't think you can go very far in your technical skills.
The best engineers I know are open to everything and played with almost every tool/language/whatever to form (sorry) informed opinions about them. They often know what they are talking about, and they choose the best tool for the job.
There'd be a lot less Rust evangelism on this site if there were less UB bug outcomes on this site.
I don't think mentioning Rust on an article specifically talking about a memory safety bug count as "constant". This is Rust's core strength.
While they did mention rust, the actual suggestion was "functional programming and immutability", which to me suggests several other languages first and makes it not really rust evangelism.
Could you elaborate? I cannot see how a functional programming language would have protected you from reading a non existing value while not providing a default
It's more that functional languages just happen to be stricter in various ways that would've mitigated against this. You could quite happily design a functional language that has an unsafe equivalent to sscanf in its stdlib, or has big parts of the spec which are "undefined behaviour" that may differ depending on the underlying OS/compiler/runtime/stdlib in use. But the more popular functional languages have gained traction in part because they tend to have a "if you model the types correctly, the program basically works" philosophy around them. I don't think things like Haskell, Ocaml or F# would allow this if you wrote idiomatic code, you'd probably need to do something a little hacky or sketchy.
It simply would not have allowed you to write code which did that. And you wouldn't have a function like sscanf() either. You'd probably end up with a much more normal looking parser function that returned a value-or-error type.
I've never heard of a functional language that would allow you to initialize a value to whatever value the system memory already had in that memory location. In languages that allow nil, it would at least be nil; in languages that don't, you would have gotten an error about an uninitialized and undefaulted value. In any typed language, you would have also gotten an error.
It's true that C may be unique-ish in this regard though- this bug also couldn't happen in Ruby, which is not a functional language, but Ruby certainly still makes undefined behaviors much more possible than in other languages like Elixir.
[dead]
Much love to Silent, who’s been improving my favorite game for over... a decade now?
> all these findings prove that the bug is NOT an issue with Windows 11 24H2, as things like the way the stack is used by internal WinAPI functions are not contractual and they may change at any time, with no prior notice. The real issue here is the game relying on undefined behavior (uninitialized local variables), and to be honest, I’m shocked that the game didn’t hit this bug on so many OS versions, although as I pointed out earlier, it was extremely close
This sentence is the real takeaway point of the article. Undefined behavior is extremely insidious and can lull you into the belief that you were right, when you already made a mistake 1000 steps ago but it only got triggered now.
I emphasized this point in my article from years ago (but after the game was released):
> When a C or C++ program triggers undefined behavior, anything is allowed to happen in the program execution. And by anything, I really mean anything: The program can crash with an error message, it can silently corrupt data, it can morph into a colorful video game, or it can even give the right result.
> If you’re lucky, the program triggering UB will show an appropriate error message and/or crash, making you immediately aware that something went wrong. If you’re unlucky, the program will quietly mangle data, and by the time you notice the problem (via effects such as crashes or incorrect output) the root cause has been buried in the past execution history. And if you’re very unlucky, the program will do exactly what you hoped it should do, until you change some unrelated code / compiler versions / compiler vendors / operating systems / hardware platforms – and then a new bug becomes visible, and you have no clue why seemingly correct code now fails to work properly.
-- https://www.nayuki.io/page/undefined-behavior-in-c-and-cplus...
As I wrote in my article, this point really got hammered into me when a coworker showed me a patch that he made - which added a couple of innocuous, totally correct print statements to an existing C++ program - and that triggered a crash. But without his print statements, there was no crash. It turned out that there was a preexisting out-of-bounds array write, and the layout of the stack/heap somehow masked that problem before, and his unlucky prints unmasked the problem.
Okay so then, how can we do better as developers today?
0) Read, understand, and memorize what actions in C or C++ are undefined behavior. Avoid them in your code at all costs. Also obey the preconditions of any API you use, whether in the standard library, operating system, etc.
1) Compile your application in Debug mode and compare its behavior to Release mode. If they differ by anything other than speed, then you have a serious problem on your hands.
2) Compile and run with sanitizers like -fsanitize=undefined,address to catch undefined behavior at runtime.
3) Use managed languages like Java, C#, Python, etc. where you basically don't have to worry about UB in normal day-to-day code. Or use very well-designed low-level languages like Rust that are safe by default and minimize your exposure to UB when you really need to do advanced things. Whereas C and C++ have been a bonanza of UB like we have never seen before in any other language.
Other than C#, there is no reason to use those other languages for game dev. Unless the game is fairly simple, or you want to risk a fairly long project by employing a language that hasn't been proven in tge space yet (Rust). No shade at any of those languages, I don't even like C#, just being pragmatic.
The most successful videogame of all time was written for Java as an applet in the browser.
1 reply →
Unity+C# is now a pretty common combo.
I would add: code defensively. Initialize your variables (either to a sensible value, or an outrageously wrong value) before passing pointers to them, even when you "know" that the value will be overwritten. Check for errors. Always consider what happens when things go wrong, not just when things go right. Any time you find yourself thinking, "condition X is guaranteed to hold, so I don't need to check for it" consider checking it anyway just in case you're wrong about that, or it changes later.
My only issue with defensive codding is that often it doesn't play nice with code coverage requirements. I've been in situations where I would like to add defensive coding just in case, but then the PR doesn't pass the coverage checks. The best is when you can ensure via th compiler (e.g. via the type system) that a case is impossible, but C++ (in my case) isn't perfect for this.
1 reply →
All this is true. Note also that the C++ folks are putting a serious effort into reducing UB. See the "safe by default" section of this writeup [1]. See also my other comment [2] regarding the performance impact of this sort of change. Short answer: with sufficient optimization, smaller than one might think.
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43779449
I learned this lesson many moons ago, on a Fortran code I wrote for a university assignment. It was a basic genetic algorithm, and for some reason it was converging much more slowly than expected. So I was sprinkling some WRITEs to debug, and suddenly the code converged a hundred times faster.
Am I the only one to be annoyed by this...?
while (this->m_fBladeAngle > 6.2831855) { this->m_fBladeAngle = this->m_fBladeAngle - 6.2831855; }
Like, "let's just write a while loop that could turn into an infinite loop coz I'm too lazy to do a division"
I want to assume that the GTA developers did this hack because it was faster than floating point division on the Playstation 2 or something.
But knowing they were able to they were able to blow up loading GTA5 by 5 minutes by just parsing json with sscanf, I don't have much hope.
IIRC the whole parsing performance issue was because the original code was written for the SP campaign of GTA5 that only had a handful of objects to parse data for. That was barely a blip in terms of performance impact and AFAIK was written years before GTAOnline was made (where it became an issue - and even then only became an issue much after GTAOnline was first made).
Writing some simple code that works with the data you expect to have without bothering with optimizations is fine, if anything it is one of the actual cases of "premature optimization": even with profiling no real time is spent on that code, your data wont make it spend any time and you should avoid wild guesses since chances are you'll be wrong (even if in this case it could be a correct guess, it'd be like a broken clock guessing the time is always 13:37).
The actual issue with that code was that, after they reused it for GTAOnline and started becoming a performance issue after some time as they added more objects, nobody thought to try and see what is wrong.
1 reply →
They were not the only one to make that mistake e.g. rapidjson had to fix the same error, few people expect parsing one token out of sscanf to strlen the entire input (not only that but there are c++ APIs which call sscanf under the hood).
The second error of deduplicating values by linear scanning an array was way more egregious.
I'm willing to bet it was was done for performance reasons, subtraction is cheaper than float point division. Probably the compiler also has some tricks to optimize this further.
There is absolutely no way this could turn into an infinite loop. It could underflow, but for that to happen angle would have to be less than the 2*pi, therefore exiting the loop.
The article discusses how that turns into an infinite loop and causes a hang.
When you subtract a small float from a very large float, the value doesn't change. This is because the "steps" between float values increase with the size of the value (i.e. floats have coarser resolution for larger magnitudes)
To see this in action, try running the following in a JavaScript interpreter:
console.log(1_000_000_000_000_000_000 - 1);
1 reply →
If m_fBladeAngle is really large (>2.2e8 back of the envelope), the subtraction will have no effect, and that would be an infinite loop.
Long shot, but maybe if the value is small, then this loop could be faster than division.
If the code runs every frame, it's probably always small and does just one iteration once in a while when it wraps over the value.
for real. The author clearly never heard of fmod
fmod takes in the order of 30+ cycles, probably more in year 2003 CPUs, vs 1 for cmp, 1 for sub, 1 for jmp.
Once this category of error is raised to your attention, you start to notice it more and more.
A little piece of technology made sense in the original context, but then it got moved to a different context without realizing that move broke the contract. Specifically in this case a flying boat became an airplane.
---
I recently worked a bug that feels very similar:
A linux cups printer would not print to the selected tray, instead it always requested manual feed.
Ok. Try a bunch of command line options, same issue.
Ok. Make the selection directly in the PPD (postscript printer definition) file. Same issue.
Ok! Decompile the PXL file. Wrong tray is set in pxl file... why?
Check Debug2 log level for cups - Wrong MediaPosition is being sent to ghostscript (which compiles the printer options into the print job) by a cups filter... why?
Cups filter is translating the MediaPosition from the PPD file... because the philosophy of cups is to do what the user intended. The intention inferred from MediaPosition in the PPD file (postscript printer definition) is that the MediaPosition corresponds to the PWG (Printer Working Group) MediaPosition, NOT the vendor MediaPosition (or local equivalent - in this case MediaSource).
AHA!! My PPD file had been copied from a previous generation of server, from a time when that cups filter did NOT translate the MediaPosition, so the VENDOR MediaSource numbers were used. Historically, this makes sense. The vendor tray number is set in the vendor ppd file because cups didn't know how to translate that.
Fast forward to a new execution context, and cups filters have gotten better at translating user intention, now it's translating a number that doesn't need to be translated, and silently selecting the wrong tray.
TLDR; There is no such thing as a printer command, only printer suggestions.
Infamously, this is also why Ariane 501 blew up.
(a component being reused in a new context where a contract is broken, not bad CUPS drivers)
Use a debugger folks. A 10x dev cited this story to me about the ills of not using one.
I always wonder, why not write these games on top of a virtual machine like Carmack started doing in Quake, a usage he then later extended to quake 2 and 3 [1].
I'm ignorant about game development, virtual machines and system programming but from the little I understand it seems a sensible choice to make.
While there is an initial price to pay modeling 99% of the game to be implemented on a user-implemented stack seems a sensible approach to me.
[1] https://fabiensanglard.net/quake3/qvm.php
This is a game; I don't think a debug configuration (with checks for things like this enabled) would run fast enough to be playable on contemporary hardware.
That's not accurate.
Generally, game console "debug" configurations aren't "true" debug like most people think of -- optimizations are still globally enabled, but the build generally has a number of debug systems enabled that naturally require the use of a devkit. Devkits, especially back then, generally had 2-3x as much memory as retail systems -- so you'd happily sacrifice framerate during feature development to have those systems enabled.
Debugging was (and still is) generally done on optimized builds and, once you know the general area of the problem, you simply disable optimizations for that file or subsystem if you can't pinpoint the issue in an optimized build.
The biggest performance hit, in general, comes from disabling optimizations in the compiler. I say "in general" because there are systems that might be used to find this kind of thing that DO make a game wholly unplayable, such as a stomp allocator. Of course, you wouldn't generally enable a stomp allocator across all your allocations unless you're desperate, so you could still have that enabled to find this kind of bug and end up with a playable game.
The more likely reason here is that no one noticed or cared. GTA:SA is 21 years old and this bug doesn't affect the Xbox or other versions.
2 replies →
The article mentions using breakpoints, so they did use a debugger.
Tools like valgrind/asan/msan would have flagged this instantly too. Just a unit test of that vehicle loader would have seen it.
Really this is more a story about poor development practice than it is an interesting bug.
Problem with valgrind/asan/msan is that you have to start using these tools early in the development process. It can't be a "checklist" item before launch, or you'll have an insurmountable number of bugs, often with them baked in such that fixing the bug causes additional changes that introduce unrelated bugs.
As if tools in early 2000's were any good...
5 replies →
The core problem is some compilers initialising memory to zero in Debug mode, masking behaviour of unitialised data, since in most cases zero is a legit value. In Release mode, this zeroing doesn’t happen.
Devs need to be aware that the following C++ initisliser exists which zeros data structures for you:
MyStruct s = { };
20 years and still nobody has realized what the back of this sign is about. IYKYK.
https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/gta-myths/images/f/f1/Egg_...
fixed link (the above did not work for me) https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/gta-myths/images/f/f1/Egg_...
And if I don't know?
It has always been too easy to read & write beyond the stack. This should fail, plain and simple.
Mitigations exist - ASLR, NX pages, stack-smashing protection etc. but nothing comprehensively stops reads of stale data beyond the stack.
Thought experiment for a moment. What if the hardware ensures the unused part of a stack region cannot be read or written.
There are many ways to skin this cat, here’s one based around tracking each stack’s start address A, size S, and current depth D
1. Add an instruction to inform the CPU there is a stack at address A of size S. Its depth D is initially 0.
2. Add a jump instruction which reserves N bytes on the stack at address A, growing depth D to (D+N). Maybe this can be its own “reserve” instruction so as not to need a new jump instruction.
3. Give existing return instructions stack awareness. If returning to an address inside a stack, un-reserve the bytes reserved by the most recent jump, making the new depth (D-N).
4. Fail reads or writes to the stack region beyond its current depth. In other words fail all reads and writes between A+S-D and A+S.
5. The arithmetic is reversed on architectures whose stacks grow downwards.
Downsides I can see:
It cements one calling convention. The CPU memory manager will need a lot of state per stack, of which there are many per process: address A, size S, current depth D, plus a reservation stack - ie. sizes of each frame’s stack memory. That’s a lot of bookkeeping! It’s far from zero cost. The limits of how much bookkeeping the CPU can do impose limits on how deep a stack can go and how many stacks are supported - so when there are too many stacks or one goes too deep, either the CPU needs to signal failure or engage a fallback mode and revert to behaving as CPUs do today. And of course fallback puts things back to the start. It’d therefore only mitigate situations in which an attacker cannot control the depth of the stack / a bug always happens inside the max depth the CPU can bookkeep for.
That said, stacks are ubiquitous! Hardware stack awareness opens up all kinds of new mitigations.
Why isn’t this a common idea? Has it been tried?
This bug wasn't caused by a read beyond the current bounds of the stack, but a stale value from a prior call to the same function at the exact same location on the stack. Buffer-overflow protections like you describe wouldn't help here.
Any solution I can think of uses a lot of resources. Those sort of methods are useful in some contexts, such as highly secure operations, but seem very excessive for the sort of abuse and leak encountered in this example.
I like the one where you shoot at the moon and it gets closer
That isn't a bug. https://x.com/ObbeVermeij/status/1757572432863384046
But it is a very likable story :)
[dead]
On Windows 11 24H2, more stack space was modified by a new implementation of Critical Sections.
IMHO this shows the downfall of Microsoft. Why did they do that? Critical sections have been there for many decades and should be basically bug-free by now. My best guess is someone thought they'd "improve" things and rewrote it, then made some microbenchmark that maybe showed the dubious improvement.
The other comment here mentions Raymond Chen, who wrote this article about why backwards-compatibility is very important (and arguably what got Microsoft into the position it's in today):
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2281932
This is an existing bug in GTA, not Windows 11.
Really? Someone depending on UB in their software represents the downfall of Microsoft?! What a hot take...
User has working software. User updates operating system. User has broken software.
That's a problem for the party trying to sell operating system updates.
3 replies →
Apparently the planes are buggy in all sorts of ways, although I don't remember them being this bad... https://youtu.be/hrJ0eVY5ACw
Surprised to see the return value of sscanf being ignored, that seems like a pretty rookie mistake, and this bug would never have made it out of the original programmer's system if they had bothered to check it.
Yes, it would have made it out of the original programmer's system for that initial commit.
FTA:
So the original code (or at least a working code + data version) in GTA Vice City had no visible problems, at least with the Skimmer object, since the vehicles.ide file had the correct number of values for the Skimmer boat object.
Someone changed the Skimmer object from a boat to a plane for GTA San Andreas, BUT they DID NOT update the object to have the REQUIRED wheel values for a plane object.
Now the GTA code is expecting more values than it gets.
The vehicles.ide wasn't validated for correctness after the Skimmer object change to plane. Maybe there are more gotchas in that file...
At least users can fix the problem with a text editor instead of waiting and hoping that RockStar would fix the problem and release an update.
tl;dr of the explanation: the Skimmer vehicle is missing a wheel scale definition, so its wheel scale gets read from uninitialized memory. On previous versions of Windows, this happened to be the wheel scale of the previously-loaded vehicle, so things happened to work fine. Starting on Windows 11 24H2, LeaveCriticalSection (which gets called between loading vehicles) uses more stack space than before, so it now overwrites that memory with a gigantic value, resulting in the Skimmer spawning so high up that it may as well not exist at all.
I wonder if they fixed the vehicle definition file as well, or just the parser. The latter would be an incomplete fix.
Given that those parameters are for wheels on a plane that doesn’t have wheels, I would say fixing the parser is the better fix
It is, but who enjoys fixing parser issues...
SilentPatch (for GTAs, at least) specifically is a code-only mod, such that the single .asi file can be removed to uninstall it & all it's changes.
A real update should fix both (note: I don't believe the later releases did, they also just added defaults to the parser) but for SilentPatch: a mod is not a real update, and being as simple as possible to remove & reducing conflicts with other mods is more important here than a fix that digs as deep as possible.
>Scientists claim to have discovered a ‘new color’ no one has seen before.
LOL!
For some reason this domain is blocked by work dns filtering?
Let your IT department know that their denylist is broken.
Yes, there doesn't seem to be anything even remotely suspicious here.
pretty wild how bugs can stick around that long - id never think something from 20 years ago would pop up just cause windows changed
I hope someone can figure out the Red Dead Redemption 2 bug where random animals and characters disappear silently if you have too many texture mods installed.
I spent hours looking for a badger.
Just like $dayjob.
How does a bug from 20 years ago even still work today?
I love it how many bugs go from "why doesn't this work?!" to "how on Earth did this work previously?!"
[dead]
[flagged]
funnily enough, there was an infamous bug in GTA5 for a long time that was related to using JSON : https://nee.lv/2021/02/28/How-I-cut-GTA-Online-loading-times...
I remember that one too :)
They wrote a JSON “parser” using sscanf. sscanf is not bulletproof! Just use an open source library instead of writing something yourself. You will still be a real programmer, but you will finish your game sooner and you won't have embarrassing stories written about you.
Loading times are still absurd, fwiw.
7 replies →
Putting the (very valid) reasons for not having human-readable game saves aside, are you sure it's worse than using a 3rd party library that's built to accept semi-valid input values, possibly evaluates user input in some way and has difficult to debug bugs that occur only under certain inputs? I agree that writing a stable and safe parser for a binary data file isn't easy, but there's less things that can go wrong when you can hardcode it to reject any remotely suspicious input. Third party XML/JSON libraries OTOH try to interpret as much as possible, even when the values are bogus. Also no need to deal with different text encoding bugs, line endings...
You misunderstood. Game developers should use a _good_ third–party library, not a _bad_ one. At a minimum they should be able to read the source code so that they know it is good. Thus open source libraries should be at the top of the list.
If you don't know what “good” looks like, take a look at [Serde](https://serde.rs/). It’s for Rust, but its features and overall design are something you should attempt to approach no matter what language you’re writing in.
5 replies →
> Putting the (very valid) reasons for not having human-readable game saves aside,
I don't follow. What would the reasons be?
13 replies →
Telling a 3d engine programmer not to have opinions on data formats? Good luck with that.
After finishing the article I immediately did ctrl+f "rust" and was disappointed to not see any of the results I wanted, but actually this comment is more hilarious than anyone saying "why didnt rockstar use rust in 2004!!!1111!!???" it's a bit more of a sophisticated joke since there's an IYKYK factor but it is no less hilarious. Bravo sir, bravo.
[dead]
To u/db48x whose post got flagged and doesn't reappear despite me vouching for it as I think they have a point (at least for modern games): GTA San Andreas was released in 2004. Back then, YAML was in its infancy (2001) and JSON was only standardized informally in 2006, and XML wasn't something widely used outside of the Java world.
On top of that, the hardware requirements (256MB of system RAM, and the PlayStation 2 only had 32MB) made it enough of a challenge to get the game running at all. Throwing in a heavyweight parsing library for either of these three languages was out of the question.
The comment reappeared, and while you're right about using proper libraries to handle data, it doesn't excuse the "undefined behavior (uninitialized local variables)" that I still see all the time despite all the warning and error flags that can be fed to the compiler.
Most of the time, the programmers who do this do not follow the simple rule that Stroustrup said which is to define or initialize a variable where you declare it (i.e. declare it before using it), and which would solve a lot of bugs in C++.
15 replies →
JSON didn't save them: This is the same studio that handrolled a JSON parser with accidentally quadratic time complexity, making most players wait 3 to 10 minutes to load GTA Online, for 7 years, until a player got tired and found the root cause.
https://nee.lv/2021/02/28/How-I-cut-GTA-Online-loading-times...
You’re not entirely wrong, but a library doesn’t have to be “heavyweight” in order to be bulletproof. And you can load the library during startup and then unload it after; it doesn’t have to stick around for the whole run time of the game. Modern OSes will reclaim the pages after you stop using them, if there is memory pressure. Of course the PS2 didn’t do that I am sure.
2 replies →
Why weren't binary files used like I would expect in the 1990's DOS game? fread into a struct and all that
4 replies →
Wow I had no idea YAML was that old. I always thought it was created some time around when CI/CD became popular. Now I'm really curious how it ended up as a superset of JSON.
Vouching seems to be time-lagged and require more than one.
XML was everywhere.
The flaw isn't the language. The issue is a 0.5x programmer not knowing to avoid sscanf() and failing to default and validate the results. This could be handled competently with strtok() parsing the lines without needing a more complicated file format.
8 replies →