lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Dec]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:55    [W:0.135 / U:0.268 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site