[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.00.1312092250010.24835@pobox.suse.cz>
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 22:51:18 +0100 (CET)
From: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
To: "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Josh Boyer <jwboyer@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] binfmt_elf: fix PIE load with randomization disabled
On Mon, 9 Dec 2013, H.J. Lu wrote:
> >> No, please don't do that. Normally, PIE has zero load address and kernel
> >> can load it anywhere. There are multiple reasons why PIE has non-zero
> >> load address. Saying you need to load a program above 4GB under x86-64,
> >> you can't do that with normal dynamic executable. PIE with non-zero load
> >> address is the only way to do that on x86-64.
> >
> > Hmm, so if it's because of 4G PT_LOAD limit, how about at least adding
>
> Yes.
>
> > randomized offset to the supplied vaddr?
>
> Yes, people who build PIE with non-zero vaddr can use
> randomized vaddr.
I don't follow you here. Do you suggest compile-time randomzation?
> > PT_LOAD being non-zero causing randomization to be turned off seems like
> > quite unexpected behavior to me, with a great potential to cause a lot of
> > confusion.
> >
>
> There should be no difference between dynamic executable and PIE
> with non-zero vaddr when choosing where to load them.
Could you please elaborate why do you think this statement is true?
Thanks,
--
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs
--
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