On Wed, 2006-06-28 at 09:43 -0700, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> On 6/27/06, Pavel Machek <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Usability for "normal" C applications is probably not too high... so
> > why not work around it in glibc, if at all?
>
> Because it wouldn't affect all b inaries. Existing code could still
> cause the problem. Also, there are other callers of the syscalls
> (direct, other libcs, etc). The only reliable way to get rid of this
> problem is to enforce it in the kernel. Since the kernel cannot make
> sense of this setting in all situations it is IMO even necessary since
> you really don't want to have anything as unstable as this code.
the thing is.. you can say EXACTLY the same about PROT_EXEC.. not all
processors support enforcing that.. so should we just always imply
PROT_EXEC as well?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
