Linux-kernel mailing list archive 1998-31,: Re: [PATCH] [SECURITY] suid procs exec'd with bad 0,1,2 fds

# Re: [PATCH] [SECURITY] suid procs exec'd with bad 0,1,2 fds

David S. Miller (davem@dm.cobaltmicro.com)
Tue, 4 Aug 1998 14:17:08 -0700

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Alan Cox: "Re: [PATCH] [SECURITY] suid procs exec'd with bad 0,1,2 fds"
- Previous message: Linus Torvalds: "Re: [PATCH] [SECURITY] suid procs exec'd with bad 0,1,2 fds"
- Maybe in reply to: Zachary Amsden: "[PATCH] [SECURITY] suid procs exec'd with bad 0,1,2 fds"
- Next in thread: Alan Cox: "Re: [PATCH] [SECURITY] suid procs exec'd with bad 0,1,2 fds"
- Reply: Alan Cox: "Re: [PATCH] [SECURITY] suid procs exec'd with bad 0,1,2 fds"
- Reply: Rogier Wolff: "Re: [PATCH] [SECURITY] suid procs exec'd with bad 0,1,2 fds"

From: alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk (Alan Cox)
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 22:03:02 +0100 (BST)

To quote Linus - "Ostrich" 8) - Sun are doing the right thing.

If they are doing it for all old sparc32 binaries, no they are not
doing the right thing. They are breaking a defined interface.

Remind me to build all my binaries to run in Solaris64 emulation
mode (I assume your emulation wont be broken right ?).

I've run Linux boxes with the stack patch for months, I've helped
design commercial product using it. Its on some of the ISP boxes I
run.

So what, this means it works for you. The systems you put together
aren't affected by a non-executable stack, and the programs you happen
to run don't happen to be affected by it either.

Not only does it break nearly all existing elf ABI's I know of, it is
a dirty and unclean implementation of the solution to top it off. Go
more so down Sun's path, put bits in the ELF header which indicate
this "extension" and then we'll be more open to such a solution
hitting the main kernel sources...

Later,
David S. Miller
davem@dm.cobaltmicro.com

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html

- Next message: Alan Cox: "Re: [PATCH] [SECURITY] suid procs exec'd with bad 0,1,2 fds"
- Previous message: Linus Torvalds: "Re: [PATCH] [SECURITY] suid procs exec'd with bad 0,1,2 fds"
- Maybe in reply to: Zachary Amsden: "[PATCH] [SECURITY] suid procs exec'd with bad 0,1,2 fds"
- Next in thread: Alan Cox: "Re: [PATCH] [SECURITY] suid procs exec'd with bad 0,1,2 fds"
- Reply: Alan Cox: "Re: [PATCH] [SECURITY] suid procs exec'd with bad 0,1,2 fds"
- Reply: Rogier Wolff: "Re: [PATCH] [SECURITY] suid procs exec'd with bad 0,1,2 fds"