Hi again;
FWIW, I found the NetBSD commit log:
http://mail-index.netbsd.org/source-changes/2003/08/24/0027.html
(The OpenBSD i386 specific hacks are pending an update to binutils)
cheers,
Pedro.
__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web s
--- Peter Jeremy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
>
> Based on some recent BUGTRAQ postings, OpenBSD has a trick to support
> full protection on the i386. The text segment and executable part of
> shared libraries are placed at low virtual addresses and CS is
> restricted to only cover the low ad
On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 12:06:28AM +0100, Pedro F. Giffuni wrote:
>> Emacs and perl both use traditional bytecode interpreters, as does the
>> Classic JVM. I agree they will be unaffected. This change will only
>> impact JIT JVMs.
>
>Well, we only have a JIT JVM for the i386, and on the particula
Tim Kientzle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The OpenBSD work on tightening up read/write/exec memory permissions
> looks interesting, but I wonder what impact it has on
> JIT technologies; do the current Java VMs or other incremental
> compilation engines require write+exec?
You can disable W^X for
Ugh... or just consider not all equipment out there needs JIT Java, and make it
a kernel option!
cheers,
Pedro.
--- Andrew Lankford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Whilst the Java bytecode is
not natively executable, a JIT JVM >needs to be
> able towrite and immediately execute native code.
> Whilst the Java bytecode is not natively executable, a JIT JVM >needs to be able
> towrite and immediately execute native code. >The OpenBSD W^X approach would
> require system calls between the >compilation and execution steps. My understanding
> of current JIT >is that the compilation is d
In a message written on Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 12:06:28AM +0100, Pedro F. Giffuni wrote:
> Well, we only have a JIT JVM for the i386, and on the particular case of the
> i386 we cannot enforce full protection anyways so there is probably a
> workaround if we do need it.
I'm not sure I want to sugge
(FWIW, Theo claims his changes are only enforcing POSIX.)
--- Peter Jeremy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
>
> Does OpenBSD support any JIT JVM?
>
Hmmm... no, looks like they run our (or the linux) JVM under emulation.
> > If perl didn't break, I think Java will survive too.
>
> Emacs and p
Peter Jeremy wrote:
On Sat, Aug 30, 2003 at 09:59:01PM +0100, Pedro F. Giffuni wrote:
If perl didn't break, I think Java will survive too.
Emacs and perl both use traditional bytecode interpreters,...
Perl5, yes.
However, Parrot (the VM being developed for Perl6, and which
may be adopted for other
On Sat, Aug 30, 2003 at 09:59:01PM +0100, Pedro F. Giffuni wrote:
> --- Tim Kientzle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
>>
>> The OpenBSD work on tightening up read/write/exec memory permissions
>> looks interesting, but I wonder what impact it has on
>> JIT technologies; do the current Java VMs or
--- Tim Kientzle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
>
> The OpenBSD work on tightening up read/write/exec memory permissions
> looks interesting, but I wonder what impact it has on
> JIT technologies; do the current Java VMs or other incremental
> compilation engines require write+exec?
>
I haven't
Pedro F. Giffuni wrote:
Just for reference, I found links to these interesting postings on NetBSD and
OpenBSD respectively:
http://mail-index.netbsd.org/tech-kern/2003/08/24/0009.html
http://www.sigmasoft.com/~openbsd/archive/openbsd-tech/200301/msg00251.html
Last time I asked, I learned our sign
12 matches
Mail list logo
