[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070106215417.GA13541@suse.de>
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2007 22:54:17 +0100
From: Marcus Meissner <meissner@...e.de>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>, 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 10:45:05PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Marcus Meissner <meissner@...e.de> wrote:
>
> > > 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.
>
> i'm wondering why you had to try to reinvent the wheel, instead of
> picking up exec-shield's remaining bits of randomization implementation
> from Fedora, which was tested for a long time and achieves PIE
> randomization and more?
Because it is i386 only last time I checked.
And it requires relaying out the heap (which you did only for i386), with
architecture specific code, which I was too afraid to touch.
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists