lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Sep]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [patch] updated exec-shield patch, 2.4/2.6 -G3
From
Date
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]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:48    [W:0.038 / U:0.352 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site