markzero wrote:
> No this isn't insufficient, what is insufficient is that I currently
> can't run a local freebsd-update server. I'm quite limited by bandwidth
> here, you see. What would make more sense in my situation would be to
> have a local mirror of the 'official' freebsd-update server so t
On Saturday 29 October 2005 13:15, you wrote:
> The thing you are refering to is W^X using the NXE register of the amd64
> if I'm not mistaken, marking memory pages as writable or executable,
> but not both. (The thing also works on i386 using an ugly hack).
Yeah. Memory on ia32 can be writable an
On Sat, Oct 29, 2005 at 12:42:16PM +, db wrote:
> On Saturday 29 October 2005 12:36, you wrote:
> > The issue is not one of want, but one of practicality. FreeBSD updates
> > to new versions of gcc relatively frequently, and having to update the
> > propolice patch with each update (or waiting
On Saturday 29 October 2005 12:36, you wrote:
> The issue is not one of want, but one of practicality. FreeBSD updates
> to new versions of gcc relatively frequently, and having to update the
> propolice patch with each update (or waiting for an update) would be
> additional work.
>
> It appears t
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005, db wrote:
On Thursday 27 October 2005 06:35, you wrote:
I don't think it will ever be in FreeBSD, but I used ProPolice in the past:
I really hope it will. AFAIK OpenBSD implemented this in late 2002 when 3.2
was released. I can see why FreeBSD doesn't want software prote
