Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2002 16:09:18 -0700 From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org> To: Jake Burkholder <jake@locore.ca> Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Time to make the stack non-executable? Message-ID: <20020629230918.GN97638@elvis.mu.org> In-Reply-To: <20020629185554.I71376@locore.ca> References: <3D1E28ED.B67A5271@FreeBSD.org> <3D1E3126.C96FFAA5@mindspring.com> <20020629185554.I71376@locore.ca>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Jake Burkholder <jake@locore.ca> [020629 15:51] wrote: > > > > For signals, this is easy: copy SVR4, and modify the signal > > functions to pass in a return address, then disable the execute > > bits on stack pages and see whose head blows up. > > > > Frankly, I'm very surprised to discover that OpenBSD has not > > already done this. > > > > Opinions? Patches from people who know and love the signals > > facility on Alpha, SPARC64, PPC, etc.? > > The sparc64 signal trampoline is already in libc, I'm running a kernel > which maps the stack non-executable locally. I recently (last week or two) forwarded a cvs commitlog from NetBSD which seems to have solved this. http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/getmsg.cgi?fetch=462972+0+archive/2002/freebsd-arch/20020623.freebsd-arch Have you guys had a look? Sorry if this is red herring, I haven't investigated it deeply. -- -Alfred Perlstein [alfred@freebsd.org] 'Instead of asking why a piece of software is using "1970s technology," start asking why software is ignoring 30 years of accumulated wisdom.' Tax deductible donations for FreeBSD: http://www.freebsdfoundation.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020629230918.GN97638>