Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [patch] updated exec-shield patch, 2.4/2.6 -G3 | From | Valdis.Kletnieks@vt ... | Date | Fri, 26 Sep 2003 13:13:58 -0400 |
| |
On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 14:28:54 +0200, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> said:
> against vanilla 2.6.0-test5: > > redhat.com/~mingo/exec-shield/exec-shield-2.6.0-test5-G2
Ingo, you rock. ;) I'm using a fairly current Rawhide here (within last 2 weeks or so).
Applied with 2 or 3 minor conflicts and a few fuzz/delta messages against -test5-mm4 (I have a refactored patch if anybody is interested). It booted OK, seems to be working well enough that e-mail and XFree (even with the evil binary NVidia driver) are functional.
> = 0 exec-shield disabled > = 1 exec-shield on PT_GNU_STACK executables [ie. binaries compiled > with newest gcc] > = 2 (default) exec-shield on all executables > > value 1 is recommended with glibc and gcc versions that support > PT_GNU_STACK all across the spectrum. (Fedora Core test2 [released > yesterday] includes all of this and all applications were recompiled to > have valid PT_GNU_STACK settings.) On other systems the value of '2' is > recommended, use setarch for those binaries that cannot take exec-shield > [eg. Loki games].
I'm assuming it's this GCC change in Rawhide:
* Wed Jun 04 2003 Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> 3.3-4
- mark object files with .note.GNU-stack notes whether they need or don't need executable stack
(and another at 3.3-5). Has the current Rawhide been recompiled with this support, or should I stick with '2' and use setarch for things that fail?
Now to go build a testcase program and try to shellcode it. ;)
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |