Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 10:46:56 +0200 From: Daniel Cegiełka <daniel.cegielka@...il.com> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: noexecstack 2012/8/6 orc <orc@...server.ru>: > On Mon, 6 Aug 2012 09:16:10 +0200 > Daniel Cegiełka <daniel.cegielka@...il.com> wrote: > >> It would be very nice if we could solve this problem in this way. I'm >> currently using this patch, but this is not the best solution in my >> opinion. Ideally if the system (kernel, binutils, libc) enforce >> noexecstack by default... definitely worth look closer at this issue. > > Consider this patch as enforcing binutils' noexecstack by default: > > diff -Naur binutils-18.104.22.168.17.o/ld/ldmain.c > binutils-22.214.171.124.17/ld/ldmain.c --- > binutils-126.96.36.199.17.o/ld/ldmain.c 2007-06-19 > 01:31:40.000000000 +0800 +++ binutils-188.8.131.52.17/ld/ldmain.c > 2012-08-03 19:59:26.658980680 +0800 @@ -281,6 +281,8 @@ > link_info.pei386_auto_import = -1; link_info.spare_dynamic_tags = 5; > link_info.sharable_sections = FALSE; > + link_info.execstack = FALSE; > + link_info.noexecstack = TRUE; > > ldfile_add_arch (""); > emulation = get_emulation (argc, argv); > > (this one for binutils 184.108.40.206.17, recent maybe patched with finding > where link_info is initialized and appending this two lines) > > GCC generates same .note.GNU-stack section definition in it's asm > output, as seen in your patch, but I don't know when it needs > executable stack and generates another definition. I'm afraid that this option will not work with .S files. Here is a comment to this feature: http://www.cygwin.com/ml/binutils/2003-06/msg00128.html Here is another patch: http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2003-05/msg00741.html it's like in the Vasily's patch with stack flags (PF_R | PF_W | PF_X): http://www.openwall.com/lists/owl-dev/2012/08/05/3 Daniel
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.