Messages in this thread | | | From | David Mosberger <> | Date | Tue, 23 Mar 2004 23:09:52 -0800 | Subject | Re: Non-Exec stack patches |
| |
>>>>> On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 18:01:14 -0800, Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com> said:
Uli> David Mosberger wrote: >> What stack protections other than RW- and RWX are useful?
Uli> It's not about "what protections". The three currently Uli> recognized states are PT_GNU_STACK not present, rwx, rw-. Uli> Ingo's code documents this. For those who need more, I'll have Uli> a paper coming up for a conference in Toronto in April.
I'd find the PT_GNU_STACK approach much more appealing if it actually was used to get rid of the stack-special case in the kernel altogether. Certainly it seems like it could be used to get rid of STACK_TOP (just use the segment's p_vaddr). That would still leave the TASK_UNMAPPED_BASE special-case, but at least it would be a step in the right direction. Also, in the case of ia64, p_memsz could be used to give user-level control over whether they want the register/memory stacks to grow towards each other or apart from each other.
--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/
| |