[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1168123332.24110.41.camel@shinybook.infradead.org>
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2007 06:42:12 +0800
From: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
To: Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>,
Marcus Meissner <meissner@...e.de>, 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, 2007-01-06 at 20:11 +0000, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> And I notice that Andi added a personality & ADDR_NO_RANDOMIZE check
> into randomize_stack_top: I cannot see why that's necessary there,
> but if it is, then should the ET_DYN case add it too?)
While I think of it... it seems that ADDR_NO_RANDOMIZE isn't "inherited"
across exec of 32-bit binaries on x86_64 or ppc64. The personality flags
get wiped out when we detect a 32-bit ELF executable and set the
personality to PER_LINUX32.
This causes suboptimal behaviour from userspace code which checks
whether it can set ADDR_NO_RANDOMIZE with a sys_personality() call, and
if so re-execs itself. Run on x86_64 or ppc64, these go into an endless
loop because it always gets cleared in the exec.
I've seen such code in two places recently (Macaulay2 and sbcl, iirc).
--
dwmw2
-
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