From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Mon May 14 06:58:15 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2BEC16A404; Mon, 14 May 2007 06:58:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from des@des.no) Received: from tim.des.no (tim.des.no [194.63.250.121]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5603713C44B; Mon, 14 May 2007 06:58:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from des@des.no) Received: from tim.des.no (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spam.des.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id C76D320A7; Mon, 14 May 2007 08:58:11 +0200 (CEST) X-Spam-Tests: AWL X-Spam-Learn: disabled X-Spam-Score: 0.0/3.0 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7 (2006-10-05) on tim.des.no Received: from dwp.des.no (des.no [80.203.243.180]) by smtp.des.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A19C20A6; Mon, 14 May 2007 08:58:11 +0200 (CEST) Received: by dwp.des.no (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 0C998563C; Mon, 14 May 2007 08:58:11 +0200 (CEST) From: des@des.no (Dag-Erling =?utf-8?Q?Sm=C3=B8rgrav?=) To: Ivan Voras References: <20070512153532.GQ21795@elvis.mu.org> <63984.1178992555@critter.freebsd.dk> <20070513215442.GZ21795@elvis.mu.org> <46478C9A.9050807@fer.hr> Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 08:58:10 +0200 In-Reply-To: <46478C9A.9050807@fer.hr> (Ivan Voras's message of "Mon\, 14 May 2007 00\:09\:30 +0200") Message-ID: <86sl9zyjr1.fsf@dwp.des.no> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.3 (berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: Alfred Perlstein , freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: HEADS DOWN X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 06:58:15 -0000 Ivan Voras writes: > Alfred Perlstein wrote: > > Let's clear the issue here... FreeBSD did not have a choice in the > > matter. > Actually it did. The SIGABORT codepath was only executed in case the > process is running under uid=3D0, in other cases it would just print out > the warning. I think behaviour such as this is a violation of POLA as > the behaviour is different depending on which users runs it (and if the > allocator can clearly handle the situation for nonprivileged users, it > can also handle it for root, but instead chose to be annoying). So you think remote exploitable root vulnerabilities are OK? DES --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=C3=B8rgrav - des@des.no