Messages in this thread | | | From | David Mosberger <> | Date | Tue, 23 Mar 2004 17:41:49 -0800 | Subject | Re: Non-Exec stack patches |
| |
>>>>> On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 17:20:12 -0800, Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com> said:
Uli> David Mosberger wrote: >> I guess I never quiet understood why an entire program header is >> needed for this, but that's just me.
Uli> First, the ELF bits are limited and very crowded on some archs. There Uli> is no central assignment so conflicts will happen.
Fair enough, but I don't see why this should imply that platforms that already do have support for no-exec data/stack should be forced into using PT_GNU_STACK. Just for uniformity's sake? Or is there a real benefit?
Uli> And one single bit does not cut it. If you'd take a look, the Uli> PT_GNU_STACK entry's permissions field specifies what permissions the Uli> stack must have, not the presence of the field. So at least two bits Uli> are needed which only adds to the problems of finding appropriate bits.
What stack protections other than RW- and RWX are useful?
--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/
| |