[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] User stack pointer randomisation

To: "Nigel Stephens" <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] User stack pointer randomisation
From: "Franck Bui-Huu" <>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 14:36:42 +0200
Cc: "Ralf Baechle" <>, linux-mips <>
Dkim-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=mh6Elgu1bY3FgultDLZOcuv0en4s4PqK0dIV+fnYTZD3qfPi/nVcuZufxvdPKzEkvQ3baGLkWkd43tpyBcMYUYNOWKEZyVd+WxHEQIy1yPhDbhMYwhQH2tMj3RfSM54Up3Hw6feGza5KBQEa90sefwu+oA4rAIiiiVZk/QSRbkc=
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=ijbJj4/IJnfTl7ZoG47hlmf6DgFAJzC0n0SN6llzPhX1VWf3vgmbPxGUYAzal0l4z3160y0bJ2EG858e3PBLNnROGaW6AbuTtRlIVroPp5LCFK1tGNFurvmxSizxJRMBz9lnsfIC9ReI/sg+kULF9fOuL8maVCBtOWF9pGX9mOs=
In-reply-to: <>
Original-recipient: rfc822;
References: <> <>
On 7/19/07, Nigel Stephens <> wrote:
Hmm, the kernel isn't necessarily built using the same ABI as
applications. While this will in fact do the right thing for O32 apps

Hey that's true.

running on 64-bit kernels, it's kind of by accident, and suggests some
equivalence which isn't really there. Would it be better to force 16
byte alignment (the maximum alignment required by any ABI) in all cases,
rather than relying on the kernel's ALMASK being correct for user
applications? Just a thought.

Again I totaly agree, this seems to me cleaner to force 16 bytes
alignment rather than using ALMASK which is part of the kernel

Let's go for a take #3 if Ralf has no objection.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>