Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261166AbVA0UOf (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Jan 2005 15:14:35 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261154AbVA0UOf (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Jan 2005 15:14:35 -0500 Received: from canuck.infradead.org ([205.233.218.70]:23054 "EHLO canuck.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261157AbVA0UNK (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Jan 2005 15:13:10 -0500 Subject: Re: Patch 0/6 virtual address space randomisation From: Arjan van de Ven To: Julien TINNES Cc: John Richard Moser , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <41F9425A.2030101@francetelecom.REMOVE.com> References: <20050127101117.GA9760@infradead.org> <41F8D44D.9070409@francetelecom.REMOVE.com> <1106827050.5624.81.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <41F927F2.2080100@comcast.net> <41F9425A.2030101@francetelecom.REMOVE.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 21:13:04 +0100 Message-Id: <1106856785.5624.132.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.0.2 (2.0.2-3) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 4.1 (++++) X-Spam-Report: SpamAssassin version 2.63 on canuck.infradead.org summary: Content analysis details: (4.1 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.3 RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO Received: contains a numeric HELO 1.1 RCVD_IN_DSBL RBL: Received via a relay in list.dsbl.org [] 2.5 RCVD_IN_DYNABLOCK RBL: Sent directly from dynamic IP address [80.57.133.107 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net] 0.1 RCVD_IN_SORBS RBL: SORBS: sender is listed in SORBS [80.57.133.107 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net] X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by canuck.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1292 Lines: 30 On Thu, 2005-01-27 at 20:34 +0100, Julien TINNES wrote: > > > > Yeah, if it came from PaX the randomization would actually be useful. > > Sorry, I've just woken up and already explained in another post. > > > > Please, no hard feelings. > > Speaking about implementation of the non executable pages semantics on > IA32, PaX and Exec-Shield are very different (well not that much since > 2.6 in fact because PAGEEXEC is now "segmentation when I can"). > But when it comes to ASLR it's pretty much the same thing. > > The only difference may be the (very small) randomization of the brk() > managed heap on ET_EXEC (which is probably the more "hackish" feature of > PaX ASLR) but it seems that Arjan is even going to propose a patch for > that (Is this in ES too ?). Exec shield randomized brk() too yes. However that is a both more dangerous and more invasive change to do correctly (you have no idea how hard it is to get that right for emacs...) so that's reserved for the second batch of patches once this first batch is dealt with. - 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/