Messages in this thread | | | From | David Mosberger <> | Date | Tue, 23 Mar 2004 23:16:36 -0800 | Subject | Re: Non-Exec stack patches |
| |
>>>>> On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 02:00:20 -0500, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> said:
Jakub> But I think we should change the toolchain and generate it on Jakub> IA64 and PPC64 as well (only GCC would need changing, Jakub> emitting .section .note.GNU-stack,"",@progbits at the end of Jakub> every compile unit, ld takes care of the rest) exactly for Jakub> uniformity's sake and because you get ld.so handling free.
I'm not following you on the "get ld.so handling free" part. How is that handling free?
Jakub> GLIBC dynamic linker will take care of making the stack Jakub> executable if say a binary which doesn't need executable Jakub> stack depends on a shared library which needs executable Jakub> stack or even dlopens a library which needs executable stack.
Actually, that's something that worries me. Somebody just needs to succeed in loading any shared object with the right PT_GNU_STACK header and then the entire program will be exposed to the risk of a writable stack. On ia64, I just don't see any need to ever implicitly turn on execute-permission on the stack, so why allow this extra backdoor?
--david - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |