From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Reply-To: kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com Sender: Vasiliy Kulikov Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 14:06:49 +0400 From: Vasiliy Kulikov Message-ID: <20110812100649.GA3379@albatros> References: <20110724084200.GB3659@albatros> <20110724142710.GB18345@openwall.com> <20110725192048.GA21675@albatros> <20110811083259.GA5429@albatros> <20110812035729.GB4964@openwall.com> <20110812042135.GA5149@openwall.com> <20110812082024.GA8785@albatros> <20110812092046.GB6400@openwall.com> <20110812095219.GA3012@albatros> <20110812100447.GB6743@openwall.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110812100447.GB6743@openwall.com> Subject: Re: [kernel-hardening] base address for shared libs To: kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com List-ID: On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 14:04 +0400, Solar Designer wrote: > > But if use distros with their default 12 bits in containers, it makes > > sense to protect them with a probabilistic measure, though. > > I don't understand what you mean here. The distros' default 12 bits - > are they patched into those distros' kernels? If so, they do not apply > to use in containers (where only userlands are used). Oh, sure. Please ignore this statement :-) -- Vasiliy