Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Low Latency Patch | From | Yoann Vandoorselaere <> | Date | 02 Jul 2000 15:00:35 +0200 |
| |
Robert Dinse <nanook@eskimo.com> writes:
> On 2 Jul 2000, Yoann Vandoorselaere wrote: > > > > Non executable stack doesn't help preventing stack overflow, > > that was said thousand of time. > > It's said erroneously, because you go from a problem of having to guess > within a page to having to be exact. > > But again, the Solar Design patch does a lot more than just provide for > a non-executable stack.
here i'm talking about the non exec stack issue, as Victor said, just consult Lkml archives (the thread about LUID, and Security in general ) and you'll see explaination why this is not usefull in order to prevent stack overflow.
> > > please stop being an asshole. > > Please stop being an asshole yourself when you are obviously unfamiliar > with all the things the patch does.
In vast majority, it append scheduling call all over the place.
> And just because something happens to be > your opinion doesn't make it right. Even the non-executable user stack area > does have value.
No they have not, see above ( and look at the thread ).
> The patch also provides restrictions on links in a +t directory, it also > prevents users from making hard links to files they don't own. This breaks a > number of race exploits, like the old passwd race, amoung other things. > > There are some restrictions on writes to FIFO's in +t directories unless > the FIFO is owned by the user or the FIFO is opened without the O_CREAT flag. > > There is the ability to restrict access to proc, for applications where > you do not want one user from watching another, ps only shows a users own > processes, etc. > > There is an option to destroy shared memory segments when not in use. > > There is a provision for priviledge IP aliases. Not real useful for what > I'm doing but for someone that runs everything on one box it could have some > real utility.
I know that and this is true, but here, i'm talking about non exec stack issue ( you just have to find the system() system call vector and pass whatever string to it (see the thread for more detail) ).
-- -- Yoann http://www.mandrakesoft.com/~yoann/ It is well known that M$ product don't make a free() after a malloc(), the unix community wish them good luck for their future development.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |