In .NET Core 2.1 a small but well-received feature was the ability to “safely” allocate a segment of data on the stack, using stackalloc , when used with Span<T> .

Before Span<T> , stackalloc required being in an unsafe context:

unsafe { byte * data = stackalloc byte [ 256 ]; }

The use of unsafe , along with the little number of APIs in .NET that could work with pointers, was enough to deter a lot of people from using it. As a result, it remained a relatively niche feature. The introduction of Span<T> now means this can be done without being in an unsafe context now:

Span < byte > data = stackalloc byte [ 256 ];

The .NET team has also been working diligently to add Span<T> APIs where it makes sense. There is now more appeal and possibility to use stackalloc .

stackalloc is desirable in some performance sensitive areas. It can be used in places where small arrays were used, with the advantage that it does not allocate on the heap - and thus does not apply pressure to the garbage collector. stackalloc is not a general purpose drop-in for arrays. They are limited in a number of ways that other posts explain well enough, and require the use of Span<T> .

Recently I vented a bit about stackalloc on Twitter, as one does on Twitter, specifically the community’s fast embrace of it, without discussing or well-documenting some of stackalloc ’s sharp edges. I’m going to expand on that here, and make an argument for stackalloc still being unsafe and requiring some thought about being used.

DON’T: Use variable allocation lengths

A large risk with using stackalloc is running out of stack space. If you’ve ever written a method that is recursive and went too deep, you’ll eventually receive a StackOverflowException . The StackOverflowException is a bit special in that it is one of the exceptions that cannot be caught. When a stack overflow occurs, the process immediately exits. Allocating too much with stackalloc has the same effect - it causes a stack overflow and the process immediately terminates.

This is particularly worrisome when the allocation’s length is determined by user input:

Span < char > buffer = stackalloc char [ userInput . Length ]; //DON'T

This allows users to take down your process, an effective denial-of-service.

Using a constant also reduces the risk of arithmetic or overflow mistakes. Currently, .NET Core’s CLR interprets that amount to be allocated as an unsigned integer. This means that an arithmetic over or under flow may result in a stack overflow.

Span < byte > b = stackalloc byte [( userInput % 64 ) - 1 ]; //DON'T

DO: Use a constant for allocation size

Instead, it’s better to use a constant value for stackalloc , always. It immediately resolves any ambiguities about how much is allocated on the stack.

Span < char > buffer = stackalloc char [ 256 ]; //better

Once you have an allocated buffer, you can use Span’s Slice funtionality to adjust it to the correct size:

Span < char > buffer = stackalloc char [ 256 ]; Span < char > input = buffer . Slice ( 0 , userInput . Length );

DON’T: Use stackalloc in non-constant loops

Even if you allocate a fixed length amount of data on the stack, doing so in a loop can be dangerous as well, especially if the number of the iterations the loop makes is driven by user input:

for ( int i = 0 ; i < userInput ; i ++) { // DON'T Span < char > buffer = stackalloc char [ 256 ]; }

This also can cause a denial of service, since this allows someone to control the number of stack allocations, though not the length of the allocation.

DO: Allocate outside of loops

Span < char > buffer = stackalloc char [ 256 ]; //better for ( int i = 0 ; i < userInput ; i ++) { //Do something with buffer }

Allocating outside of the loop is the best solution. This is not only safer, but also better for performance.

DON’T: Allocate a lot on the stack

It’s tempting to allocate as much as nearly possible on the stack:

Span < byte > data = stackalloc byte [ 8000 * 1024 ]; // DON'T

You may find that this runs fine on Linux, but fails on Windows with a stack overflow. Different operating systems, architectures, and environments, have different stacks limits. Linux typically allows for a larger stack than Windows by default, and other hosting scenarios such as in an IIS worker process come with even lower limits. An embedded environment may have a stack of only a few kilobytes.

DO: Conservatively use the stack

The stack should be used for small allocations only. How much depends on the size of each element being allocated. It’s also desirable to not allocate many large structs, either.

I won’t prescribe anything specific, but anything larger than a kilobyte is a point of concern. You can allocate on the heap depending on how much you need. A typical pattern might be:

const int MaxStackSize = 256 ; Span < byte > buffer = userInput > MaxStackSize ? new byte [ userInput ] : stackalloc byte [ MaxStackSize ]; Span < byte > data = buffer . Slice ( 0 , userInput );

This will allocate on the stack for small amounts, still in a constant amount, or if too large, will use a heap-allocated array. This pattern may also make it easier to use ArrayPool , if you choose, which also does not guarantee that the returned array is exactly the requested size:

const int MaxStackSize = 256 ; byte []? rentedFromPool = null ; Span < byte > buffer = userInput > MaxStackSize ? ( rentedFromPool = ArrayPool < byte >. Shared . Rent ( userInput )) : stackalloc byte [ MaxStackSize ]; // Use data Span < byte > data = buffer . Slice ( 0 , userInput ); // Return from pool, if we rented if ( rentedFromPool is object ) { // DO: if using ArrayPool, think carefully about clearing // or not clearing the array. ArrayPool < byte >. Shared . Return ( rentedFromPool , clearArray : true ); }

DON’T: Assume stack allocations are zero initialized

Most normal uses of stackalloc result in zero-initialized data. This behavior is however not guaranteed, and can change depending if the application is built for Debug or Release, and other contents of the method. Therefore, don’t assume that any of the elements in a stackalloc ed Span<T> are initialized to something by default. For example:

Span < byte > buffer = stackalloc byte [ sizeof ( int )]; byte lo = 1 ; byte hi = 1 ; buffer [ 0 ] = lo ; buffer [ 1 ] = hi ; // DONT: depend on elements at 2 and 3 being zero-initialized int result = BinaryPrimitives . ReadInt32LittleEndian ( buffer );

In this case, we might expect the result to be 257, every time. However if the stackalloc does not zero initialize the buffer, then the contents of the upper-half of the integer will not be as expected.

This behavior will not always be observed. In Debug builds, it’s likely that you will see that stackalloc zero-initializes its contents every time, whereas in Release builds, you may find that the contents of a stackalloc are uninitialized.

Soon developers will be able to explicitly skip zero-initializing stackalloc contents with the SkipLocalsInit feature. Currently, whether or not stackalloc is default initialized is up to Roslyn. This feature will allow more explicit control over skipping stack allocation initialization.

DO: Initialize if required

Any item read from a stackalloc ed buffer should be explicitly assigned, or use Clear to explicitly clear the entire Span<T> and initialize it to defaults.

Span < byte > buffer = stackalloc byte [ sizeof ( int )]; buffer . Clear (); //explicit zero initialize byte lo = 1 ; byte hi = 1 ; buffer [ 0 ] = lo ; buffer [ 1 ] = hi ; int result = BinaryPrimitives . ReadInt32LittleEndian ( buffer );

Though not explicitly covered in this post, the same advice applies to arrays rented from the ArrayPool .

Summary