[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: kernel stack
- To: tech_(_at_)_openbsd_(_dot_)_org
- Subject: Re: kernel stack
- From: Eugene Tsyrklevich <eugene_(_at_)_securityarchitects_(_dot_)_com>
- Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 22:14:17 -0800
err, they changed their webpage around, adding all that linux stuff.
i meant to point to http://pageexec.virtualave.net/pageexec.txt
the theory behind what and how they did it
On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 09:16:50PM -0700, Tobias Weingartner wrote:
> On Monday, November 13, Eugene Tsyrklevich wrote:
> > http://pageexec.virtualave.net might be of interest
> > regards
> You're kidding, right?
> > On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 01:05:12PM -0500, Michael Shalayeff wrote:
> > > Making, drinking tea and reading an opus magnum from Nathan Binkert:
> > > > > is the kernel stack marked executable like user stacks? & if so, is the
> > re
> > > > > any reason why you couldn't remove stack execution?
> > > >
> > > > Most processors don't support execute protection bits, so you can't just
> > > > remove exection from arbitrary regions of memory. x86 for example does
> > > > not have any such option.
> > >
> > > not exactly.
> > > segments could be made non-executable.
> > > the problem is that would require cs != ds,
> > > even though they would map the same memory, but it would
> > > produce a lot of unneeded complexity, i think that
> > > would be the real reason.
> > >
> > > cu