Re: [PATCH] [SECURITY] suid procs exec'd with bad 0,1,2 fds

Alan Cox (linker@z.ml.org)
Tue, 4 Aug 1998 12:49:10 -0400 (EDT)

ARGH! Solar's patch DOES NOT BREAK trampolines!!!!!!
It catches the exception and decodes the code and detects the trampolines
and lets it work. This does open up the window for some strange types of
overflow attack but it makes it MUCH harder. I dont know of any cases
where this tramp allow behavior can permit an overflow attack. The nostack
patch fixes all known overflows and makes it much harder.

Stop spreading FUD. If I spread FUD It's one thing.. If you spread FUD
it's quite another, you are VERY respected.

-
Gregory Maxwell

On Tue, 4 Aug 1998, David S. Miller wrote:

> From: "Peter T. Breuer" <ptb@it.uc3m.es>
> Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 13:01:49 +0200 (MET DST)
>
> "A month of sundays ago Alan Cox wrote:"
> >
> > Actually a _lot_ of people run the non-excutable stack and related
> > patches. They don't break anything, they stop a lot of the "I read bugtraq
>
> As I remember, they broke gdb.
>
> I saw some other funny effects later and backed them out.
>
> They also break the trampolines emmited naturally by gcc.
>
> Alan, this and for other reasons are why I think they should be
> seperate patch sets, never in the mainline.
>
> Later,
> David S. Miller
> davem@dm.cobaltmicro.com
>
> -
> 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.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html
>

-
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.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html