Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 17 Feb 2001 09:44:05 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 17 Feb 2001 09:43:55 -0500 Received: from wire.cadcamlab.org ([156.26.20.181]:24334 "EHLO wire.cadcamlab.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sat, 17 Feb 2001 09:43:40 -0500 Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 08:43:30 -0600 To: "Eric W. Biederman" Cc: Manfred Spraul , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Is this the ultimate stack-smash fix? Message-ID: <20010217084330.A17398@cadcamlab.org> In-Reply-To: <3A899FEB.D54ABBC7@sympatico.ca> <3A8ADA30.2936D3B1@sympatico.ca> <3A8BF5ED.1C12435A@colorfullife.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.12i In-Reply-To: ; from ebiederm@xmission.com on Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 09:00:48AM -0700 From: Peter Samuelson Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org [Manfred Spraul] > > Unless you modify the ABI and pass the array bounds around you won't > > catch such problems, [Eric W. Biederman] > Of course. But this is linux and you have the source. And I did > mention you needed to recompile the libraries your trusted > applications depended on. So by what ABI do you propose to pass array bounds to a called function? It sounds pretty ugly. It also sounds like you will be breaking the extremely useful C postulate that, at the ABI level at least, arrays and pointers are equivalent. I can't see *how* you plan to work around that one. > Yep bounds checking is not an easy fix. Understatement of the year, if you really want to catch all cases. Peter - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/