[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110730184329.GA4447@albatros>
Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2011 22:43:29 +0400
From: Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@...nwall.com>
To: kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: base address for shared libs
Solar,
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 22:38 +0400, Vasiliy Kulikov wrote:
> This is a patch, which should solve the problem. Note that the default
> base address allocation policy for the mainline is top-down, so
> 0x00110000 was not considered even in x86-32. Now it should work for
> both 32-bit systems and 32-bit tasks in 64-bit systems.
One note: if watch for ldd output, approx. every 20th output shows that
some library gets 0xffAABBCC address. If watch for the real task's maps
(via /proc/pid/maps), all libs are located before 0x01AABBCC.
I don't know for sure how ldd allocated memory, but I suspect it wastes
too much 0x00AABBCC addresses, so sometimes there is no place for them.
So, I don't think it is an issue.
Thanks,
--
Vasiliy Kulikov
http://www.openwall.com - bringing security into open computing environments
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.
