Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 7 Aug 1998 07:45:40 -0400 (EDT) | From | Stephen Frost <> | Subject | Re: non exec stack & devfs threads! |
| |
I think I could agree w/ you on that, however I think we should remember that having an executable stack is part of the ELF spec I believe. Perhaps warning messages about it, but not denying it.
Stephen
On Fri, 7 Aug 1998, David Burrows wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Aug 1998, Mark H. Wood wrote: > > > Actually I think of the nonexecutable stack patch as a *detector* for > > problem code, not a cure for it. When I see messages about trying to > > execute the stack, I know I have a busted program so I can fix it and > > yell at the maintainer for letting out buggy code. To me this is more > > secure than just assuming that every coder in the world has set up the > > right compilation options or completely desk-checked and tested his code. > > I would agree with this reasoning if there was some way of transparently > doing this, without effecting other programs.. And a configurable option, > perhaps maybe enabled only if debug is set. > > Anyone? > > > - > 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.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html >
- 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.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html
| |