[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110630160345.GA15258@albatros>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 20:03:45 +0400
From: Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@...nwall.com>
To: kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: overview of PaX features
Solar,
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 23:43 +0400, Solar Designer wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 10:37:28PM +0400, Vasiliy Kulikov wrote:
> > That's not only about old apps, but also a default relaxed policy for
> > the toolchain:
> >
> > http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/hardened/gnu-stack.xml
>
> Of course. In my experience, most programs that currently get
> executable stack actually don't need it.
>
> And for gcc trampolines we can include the emulation code in the kernel.
I've looked over -ow and PaX' implementations of trampolines emulation.
Two notes:
1) Are trampolines the only widespread user of executable stack?
(widespread among executable stack needings ;)
2) In -ow patch the trampolines emulation is very tolerant: it supports
up to 8 movs and then one of 2 jmps. PaX' version distinguishes only 2
specific trampolines implementations and alerts if the code doesn't fit
into these strict patterns. Taking into consideration how long PaX
patch exists, I suppose the restricted version cover all (or almost all)
realworld trampolines implementations. The -ow variant would relax the
stack too much.
Btw, there is a tool to change executable stack settings per binary,
written by Jakub Jelinek (Red Hat):
http://linux.die.net/man/8/execstack
Thanks,
--
Vasiliy
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
