Re: Non-Exec stack patches
From: David Mosberger
Date: Wed Mar 24 2004 - 02:11:13 EST
>>>>> On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 18:01:14 -0800, Ulrich Drepper <drepper@xxxxxxxxxx> 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
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/