Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 12 Jan 2004 19:32:34 -0800 | From | Aaron Lehmann <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] stronger ELF sanity checks v2 |
| |
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 02:55:07AM +0100, Jesper Juhl wrote: > Here's the second version of my patch to add better sanity checks for > binfmt_elf
I assume this breaks Brian Raiter's tiny ELF executables[1]. Even though these binaries are evil hacks that don't comply to standards and serve no serious purpose, I'm not sure what the purpose of the sanity checks is. Are there any risks associated with running non-compliant ELF executables? (Now that I mention it, the proof-of-concept exploit for the brk() hole comes to mind, but I don't know offhand if that did anything against the spec.) I don't mean to question the usefulness of your work, especially as I don't know much about ELF, but I'm personally curious about why you think additional sanity checks are worth a slight increase in code complexity.
1. http://www.muppetlabs.com/~breadbox/software/tiny/ - 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/
| |