Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2002 18:18:51 -0700 From: Bill Huey <billh@gnuppy.monkey.org> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: Jake Burkholder <jake@locore.ca>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG, Bill Huey <billh@gnuppy.monkey.org> Subject: Re: Time to make the stack non-executable? Message-ID: <20020630011851.GA1889@gnuppy.monkey.org> In-Reply-To: <3D1E55E5.998DCEBA@mindspring.com> References: <3D1E28ED.B67A5271@FreeBSD.org> <3D1E3126.C96FFAA5@mindspring.com> <20020629185554.I71376@locore.ca> <20020629232603.GA1361@gnuppy.monkey.org> <3D1E55E5.998DCEBA@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Jun 29, 2002 at 05:50:45PM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote: > The real question is whether or not it would interfere with KSE > itself (Julian says "no"), and whether or not it would interfere > with anything else. I know that it will break signals, unless > the signals system is modified to pass the return address as an > argument. Stepping on that code is really dangerous now (as I > pointed out to Sean), sine it's one of the places that's really > in flux (particularly on the Alpha), according to Julian. That's probably up to the UTS system itself and how it handles upcalls. I don't remember anything in the uthreads using something like that currently, so that answer to that is probably "no" at this time. That's up the UTS folks in question. > It would be really nice to be immune from stack overflow based > hacks. That probably impossible in "C" without consideration to the language facilities and some kind of runtime bounds checking. bill To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020630011851.GA1889>