linux-kernel - Re: revert PIE randomization?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20070106210826.GA31518@suse.de>
Date:	Sat, 6 Jan 2007 22:08:26 +0100
From:	Marcus Meissner <meissner@...e.de>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>
Cc:	Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
	Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Dave Jones <davej@...emonkey.org.uk>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: revert PIE randomization?

On Sat, Jan 06, 2007 at 01:04:02PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> 
> On Sat, 6 Jan 2007, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > 
> > Isn't that randomization, anywhere from 0x10000 to ELF_ET_DYN_BASE,
> > sure to place the ET_DYN from time to time just where the comment says
> > it's trying to avoid?  I assume that somehow results in the error reported.
> 
> Hmm.. It's certainly the case that it would appear that the randomization 
> might put the binary just under the heap, and cause conflicts with brk 
> and the mmap heap.
> 
> You're right. I'm inclined to just revert it, modulo some comments from 
> others. Marcus?

After thinking about this, yes.

I would rather have a working range used here (perhaps like Hugh suggested),
but feel free to revert the original patch if you are not confident with it.

Ciao, Marcus
-
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/