[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2014 09:48:17 +0200
From: Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@...t70.net>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Re: A running list of questions from "porting" Slackware
to musl
* Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> [2014-09-30 16:50:28 -0700]:
> On 09/30/2014 08:50 AM, Rich Felker wrote:
> > When gcc generates the canary-check code, on failure it normally
> > calls/jumps to __stack_chk_fail. But for shared libraries, that call
> > would go to a thunk in the library's PLT, which depends on the GOT
> > register being initialized (actually this varies by arch; x86_64
...
>
> On x86_64, this would be call *whatever@...off(%rip) instead of call
> whatever@....
>
> (Even better: the loader could patch the PLT with a direct jump. Could
...
hm this seems to be a lot of complication just to crash
if gcc had a -fcrash-on-ssp-chk-fail flag that simply generated
a crash instruction that would be simpler/smaller/more secure
(actually i think that should be the default behaviour)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
