Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2017 19:29:37 +1000
From: Michael Ellerman <>
To: Daniel Micay <>, Bhupesh Sharma <>,,,
Cc:, Anton Blanchard <>, Daniel Cashman <>, Kees Cook <>, Benjamin Herrenschmidt <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc: Increase ELF_ET_DYN_BASE to 1TB for 64-bit applications

Daniel Micay <> writes:

> Rather than doing this, the base should just be split for an ELF
> interpreter like PaX.

I don't quite parse that, I think you mean PaX uses a different base for
an ELF interpreter vs a regular ET_DYN?

That would be cool. How do you know that it's an ELF interpreter you're
loading? Is it just something that's PIE but doesn't request an

Is the PaX code somewhere I can look at?

> It makes sense for a standalone executable to be as low in the address
> space as possible.

More or less. There are performance reasons why 1T could be good for us,
but I want to see some performance numbers to justify that change. And
it does mean you have a bit less address space to play with.


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.