[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1159106032.11049.12.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2006 14:53:52 +0100
From: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Stas Sergeev <stsp@...et.ru>
Cc: Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>,
Linux kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch] remove MNT_NOEXEC check for PROT_EXEC mmaps
Ar Sul, 2006-09-24 am 10:55 +0400, ysgrifennodd Stas Sergeev:
> Before, people could use it and hope the binaries
> won't get executed (and if it was possible to execute
> them by invoking ld.so directly, then ld.so could have
> been fixed). Now the only possibility is to not use the
> "noexec" at all.
> So does that add to security or substract?..
If you want a tmpfs with noexec and a shared memory space with exec why
don't you just sort out mounting two different tmpfs instances ?
Alan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists