[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120806144521.565b32cc@sibserver.ru>
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 14:45:21 +0800
From: orc <orc@...server.ru>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: noexecstack
On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 23:35:36 +0200
Daniel Cegiełka <daniel.cegielka@...il.com> 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?
>
> The patch for musl asm files is attached...
>
> best regards,
> Daniel
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is ugly stuff.
- binutils ld has -z noexecstack command line option.
- this (GNU_STACK) is binutils-specific (tinycc, for example, does not
generate ELFs with that section, and future direction should be on
that plain ELFs without any gnuish extensions IMO)
- Kernel sets executable stack by default, kernel can be patched not to
do that (that's one line patch per architecture)
- binutils can be patched to not produce ELFs with executable stack by
default
While some of options I listed here may harm some GCC or binutils
internals (I don't know), I see an utility that comes with grsecurity
patches (paxctl) that operates that section (GNU_STACK), converting it
into it's own.
I tested a system with patched binutils and kernel (but binutils patch
here will be enough) without any problems.
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.
