[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120807115759.GA3713@albatros>
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 15:57:59 +0400
From: Vasily Kulikov <segoon@...nwall.com>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: noexecstack
Hi,
On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 14:45 +0800, orc wrote:
> - 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)
I haven't seen any specs for GNU_STACK, but it is used by Linux kernel,
so it is a de facto standard in Linux.
> - Kernel sets executable stack by default, kernel can be patched not to
> do that (that's one line patch per architecture)
This "default" is a case of absent GNU_STACK in the executable. This
case is fully handled in my patch. It will not be present in the
upstream kernel, though.
> - binutils can be patched to not produce ELFs with executable stack by
> default
As with kernel defaults, upstream binutils is WONTFIX. Use hardened
kernel/toolchain or set -z,noexecstack (the latter is better unless you
use nested functions or something).
Thanks,
--
Vasily 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.
