lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Mar]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: 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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:01    [W:0.208 / U:0.232 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site