From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Aug 31 02:16:01 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5747C16A4BF for ; Sun, 31 Aug 2003 02:16:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cirb503493.alcatel.com.au (c211-28-27-130.belrs2.nsw.optusnet.com.au [211.28.27.130]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A60443FE3 for ; Sun, 31 Aug 2003 02:15:59 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from PeterJeremy@optushome.com.au) Received: from cirb503493.alcatel.com.au (localhost.alcatel.com.au [127.0.0.1])h7V9Fkgh086457; Sun, 31 Aug 2003 19:15:54 +1000 (EST) (envelope-from jeremyp@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au) Received: (from jeremyp@localhost) by cirb503493.alcatel.com.au (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h7V9FimW086456; Sun, 31 Aug 2003 19:15:44 +1000 (EST) Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2003 19:15:44 +1000 From: Peter Jeremy To: "Pedro F. Giffuni" Message-ID: <20030831091544.GA86421@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au> References: <20030830221458.GC85746@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au> <20030830230628.98508.qmail@web13406.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030830230628.98508.qmail@web13406.mail.yahoo.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org cc: kientzle@acm.org Subject: Re: Non-executable mappings now in NetBSD too X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2003 09:16:01 -0000 On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 12:06:28AM +0100, Pedro F. Giffuni wrote: >> Emacs and perl both use traditional bytecode interpreters, as does the >> Classic JVM. I agree they will be unaffected. This change will only >> impact JIT JVMs. > >Well, we only have a JIT JVM for the i386, and on the particular case of the >i386 we cannot enforce full protection anyways so there is probably a >workaround if we do need it. Based on some recent BUGTRAQ postings, OpenBSD has a trick to support full protection on the i386. The text segment and executable part of shared libraries are placed at low virtual addresses and CS is restricted to only cover the low address space. I don't know whether it's worthwhile to implement something along these lines in FreeBSD. Peter