Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964809AbWJCPBs (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Oct 2006 11:01:48 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S964810AbWJCPBs (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Oct 2006 11:01:48 -0400 Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:13201 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964809AbWJCPBr (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Oct 2006 11:01:47 -0400 Subject: Re: [patch] remove MNT_NOEXEC check for PROT_EXEC mmaps From: Arjan van de Ven To: Stas Sergeev Cc: Linux kernel , Alan Cox , Hugh Dickins , Ulrich Drepper , Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu In-Reply-To: <451E3C0C.10105@aknet.ru> References: <45150CD7.4010708@aknet.ru> <451555CB.5010006@aknet.ru> <1159037913.24572.62.camel@localhost.localdomain> <45162BE5.2020100@aknet.ru> <1159106032.11049.12.camel@localhost.localdomain> <45169C0C.5010001@aknet.ru> <4516A8E3.4020100@redhat.com> <4516B2C8.4050202@aknet.ru> <4516B721.5070801@redhat.com> <45198395.4050008@aknet.ru> <1159396436.3086.51.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <451E3C0C.10105@aknet.ru> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Intel International BV Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 17:01:22 +0200 Message-Id: <1159887682.2891.537.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.3 (2.2.3-2.fc4) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by pentafluge.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: 901 Lines: 22 On Sat, 2006-09-30 at 13:42 +0400, Stas Sergeev wrote: > Hello. > > Arjan van de Ven wrote: > >>/ wants to be able to mark more partitions as noexec,/ > > .... and then execute from them! > > that's what is bothering me most about all of this. > Do you mean "execute with ld.so", or "execute with PROT_EXEC mmap"? no what bothers me that on the one hand you want no execute from the partition, and AT THE SAME TIME want stuff to execute from there (being libraries or binaries, same thing to me). That duality feels strange to me, I could understand if you wanted noexec to be MORE strict; I fail to understand why you want it LESS strict! What breaks? - 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/