lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Jan]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: thoughts on kernel security issues
From
Date
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 13:16:33 EST, John Richard Moser said:

> > 1) the halving of the per-process VM space from 3GB to 1.5GB.

> Which has *never* caused a problem in anything I've ever used, and can
> be disabled on a per-process basis.

Just because something has never caused *you* a problem doesn't mean that
it's suitable for inclusion in something like RedHat where it's almost
certain to cause a problem for *some* user.

> > [ 3) requires manual tagging of applications. ]
> >
>
> Good. Maybe distributors will actually know what they're talking about
> when flapping their mouths, rather than say "Oh look PaX it's magic so
> we just need to turn it on!" Even I (at user level) examine everything
> I'm using and try to understand it; I don't expect all users to do this,
> but the distribution has to.

OK.. but then you say...

> PT_GNU_STACK is actually explicitly disabled -- apparently this is hard
> work, as my distribution can't seem to always keep up with it or get it
> quite right.

Can you explain why your distro has difficulty getting PT_GNU_STACK 100%
right, but you expect them to get tagging of apps with a flag that has
almost identical semantics to PT_GNU_STACK correct?


[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:09    [W:0.351 / U:0.252 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site