Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262126AbVBAVjQ (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Feb 2005 16:39:16 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262129AbVBAVjQ (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Feb 2005 16:39:16 -0500 Received: from wproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.184.199]:34373 "EHLO wproxy.gmail.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262126AbVBAVjF convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Feb 2005 16:39:05 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references:x-mailer:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=mDKmJhrHwT9GNtBK5fo84RL9odXMmybfhcVluh60oDb9fApvuvOy/gwmroAJMH4KepaPGvnu3+z/KxLWAc6vfvC8meRO7cieSe0DHeb2E0sYYbc1jCwidM/KEvd9OhIlW6Laa7g3pfea/WbcFxHeZLjQaRL5atudJfcKPLCXG5I= Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2005 22:39:05 +0100 From: Diego Calleja To: Peter Busser Cc: arjan@infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Sabotaged PaXtest (was: Re: Patch 4/6 randomize the stack pointer) Message-Id: <20050201223905.165a2a60.diegocg@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <200502011044.39259.busser@m-privacy.de> References: <200501311015.20964.arjan@infradead.org> <200501311357.59630.busser@m-privacy.de> <1107189699.4221.124.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <200502011044.39259.busser@m-privacy.de> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 1.0.0 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1052 Lines: 21 El Tue, 1 Feb 2005 10:44:39 +0100 Peter Busser escribi?: > > which is clearly there to sabotage any segmentation based approach (eg > > execshield and openwall etc); it cannot have any other possible use or > > meaning. > > Ah, so you are saying that I sabotaged PaXtest? Sorry to burst your bubble, > but the PaXtest tests are no real attacks. They are *simulated* attacks. The > do_mprotect() is there to *simulate* behaviour people found in GLIBC under > certain circumstances. In other words: This is how certain applications > behave when run on exec-shield. They complained that PaXtest showed > inaccurate results on exec-shield. Since the purpose of PaXtest is to show > accurate results, the lack thereof has been fixed. And people complains that nobody uses pax.... - 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/