[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAMSMCxk6KrAyWsHveY-62erJTkK0OcK1_iS_XB8bEHHrPCom2w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2012 15:01:08 -0700
From: Nathan McSween <nwmcsween@...il.com>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: noexecstack
On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 05, 2012 at 11:35:36PM +0200, Daniel Cegiełka wrote:
>> Vasily Kulikov published a patch for nonexecutable stack for glibc in Owl.
>>
>> http://openwall.com/lists/owl-dev/2012/08/05/1
>> http://openwall.com/lists/owl-dev/2012/08/05/3
>>
>> Should we support this in the musl?
>
> Yes, but there should be a way to do it without putting ugly stuff
> like this in every single asm file. Why isn't there a command-line
> option to the assembler to do it? Or a way to do it globally with
> objcopy?
>
> Better yet, why is executable stack even still supported by Linux at
> all?
>
> Rich
GCC nested functions require executable stack and consequently quite a
few GNU / bad projects utilize this 'feature'.
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.
