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

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Steve Snyder: "[2.1.113] What is CHECK_TTY_COUNT warning me about?"
• Previous message: Ian Stirling: "Hardware usage."
• Maybe in reply to: Zachary Amsden: "[PATCH] [SECURITY] suid procs exec'd with bad 0,1,2 fds"
• Next in thread: Horst von Brand: "Re: [PATCH] [SECURITY] suid procs exec'd with bad 0,1,2 fds"

- Marsh

From: Simon Kenyon <simon@koala.ie>

>for what it is worth, rob pike and bart locanthi (sp?) of bell labs wrote
>(back in 198x, where x is small) a bitblit implementation which constructed
>the optimal implementation on the stack and then jumped to it
>
>old example i know, but an executable stack does have its uses

-
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

• Next message: Steve Snyder: "[2.1.113] What is CHECK_TTY_COUNT warning me about?"
• Previous message: Ian Stirling: "Hardware usage."
• Maybe in reply to: Zachary Amsden: "[PATCH] [SECURITY] suid procs exec'd with bad 0,1,2 fds"
• Next in thread: Horst von Brand: "Re: [PATCH] [SECURITY] suid procs exec'd with bad 0,1,2 fds"