Re: Patch 0/6 virtual address space randomisation

[John Richard Moser <nigelenki@comcast.net>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



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 ?).
> 
> I think it's a great opportunity here to get the same basis for ASLR in
> PaX and ES merged into the vanilla kernel.
> If it's only a matter of changing the number of randomized bits in an
> additional PaX patch, it's no problem! It's more important to have a
> correct basis, focus on that.
> 

I'm not at all familiar with the code, though PaX uses more fine-grained
binary markings in PT_PAX_FLAGS (requires a patched binutils, though I
guess a PaX system could just nuke PT_GNU_STACK from .load and replace
it with PT_PAX_FLAGS).  *shrug*

. . . ok so I've hacked at PaX' source a few times for fun, but I forgot
everything I saw, I swear. :)

whatever, at this point I've lost interest, as I'm starting to wonder
where my next meal will come from.

- --
All content of all messages exchanged herein are left in the
Public Domain, unless otherwise explicitly stated.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD4DBQFB+UeohDd4aOud5P8RAra3AJsEs0fJiQvqbp45ySUbUQT/TJkDRACYoYzq
nzy0VdUXiT84DEzzkPDVVQ==
=exFr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----