Message-Id: <200509222032.j8MKWo44011569@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
To: Zan Lynx <zlynx@acm.org>
Cc: breno@kalangolinux.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: security patch 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 22 Sep 2005 14:24:48 MDT."
             <1127420688.10462.9.camel@localhost> 
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
References: <20050922194433.13200.qmail@webmail2.locasite.com.br> <200509222003.j8MK3i8E010365@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
            <1127420688.10462.9.camel@localhost>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_1127421170_2709P";
	 micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 16:32:50 -0400
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1116
Lines: 33

--==_Exmh_1127421170_2709P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 14:24:48 MDT, Zan Lynx said:

> An interesting thing that I don't think has been done before is to
> create a map linking stack call chains to syscalls.  If the call stack
> doesn't match then it isn't a valid call.

I suspect longjmp() and friends would play havoc on this, and vice versa,
as well as those syscalls that are legal from inside signal handlers, and
a few other cases.

What validity check were you planning to make on the stack call chain?

--==_Exmh_1127421170_2709P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001

iD8DBQFDMxTycC3lWbTT17ARAkACAKCPOKCZ1wnV1AhOPYwIg32nCbd2DwCgixNf
SBpO8xCkCBE4aLrls5EoiAE=
=krNZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--==_Exmh_1127421170_2709P--
-
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/