Re: Non-Exec stack patches

[David Mosberger]

>>>>> On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 17:20:12 -0800, Ulrich Drepper <drepper@xxxxxxxxxx> said:

  Uli> David Mosberger wrote:
  >> I guess I never quiet understood why an entire program header is
  >> needed for this, but that's just me.

  Uli> First, the ELF bits are limited and very crowded on some archs.  There
  Uli> is no central assignment so conflicts will happen.

Fair enough, but I don't see why this should imply that platforms that
already do have support for no-exec data/stack should be forced into
using PT_GNU_STACK.  Just for uniformity's sake?  Or is there a real
benefit?

  Uli> And one single bit does not cut it.  If you'd take a look, the
  Uli> PT_GNU_STACK entry's permissions field specifies what permissions the
  Uli> stack must have, not the presence of the field.  So at least two bits
  Uli> are needed which only adds to the problems of finding appropriate bits.

What stack protections other than RW- and RWX are useful?

	--david
-
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/