Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 28 Dec 1999 09:51:57 +0100 | From | Martin Dalecki <> | Subject | Re: Unexecutable stack |
| |
"Mike A. Harris" wrote: > > On Mon, 27 Dec 1999, Martin Dalecki wrote: > > >> > I've recently played a bit with Solar Designer's patch and it looks that > >> > it doesn't have any > >> > significant overhead. Shoudn't it be in the kernel by default(at > >> > least,SECURE_STACK)? > >> > >> Last time when this question was raised was more then year ago (if I recall > >> correctly) and Linus said that his feeling about unexecutable stack is that > >> it does not make exploits impossible but insted give you false sense of safety. > >> So answer is "no". You can add such patch by hands if you wish... > > > >And it would prevent anything from working which is emplying the stack > >as a trampoline to pass around ... guess what ... for example thrown > >exceptions. > > People are always quick to state as fact things that they have > not looked into. I don't know what the current status is on > this, but as I understand it, trampolines work with these > patches. This is all an FAQ. I've read this thread 40 times in
Concerete refferences to anything where not given. As a merit of fact: if you can't execute code on the stack trampolines will cease to work. Whatever kind of cludge in some *special* patch you are speaking about I just can't guess out from the current solar system constellation. So hold your breath...
-- Marcin Dalecki
- 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.tux.org/lkml/
| |