On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 2:00 PM, PaX Team wrote:
> On 23 Feb 2016 at 12:53, Kees Cook wrote:
>
>> I prefer using all the "regular" mechanisms so that I really know I'm
>> exercising the actual case I want to be testing. (i.e. I don't want to
>> bypass the linker.)
>>
>> If only there were some way
On 23 Feb 2016 at 12:53, Kees Cook wrote:
> I prefer using all the "regular" mechanisms so that I really know I'm
> exercising the actual case I want to be testing. (i.e. I don't want to
> bypass the linker.)
>
> If only there were some way to filter gcc output, like with plugins. ;)
plugins can
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 3:21 PM, PaX Team wrote:
> On 22 Feb 2016 at 12:46, Kees Cook wrote:
>
>> GCC really wants to declare the section. :(
>
> hmm, i see, so how about going about it another way. instead of trying
> to do this at compile/link time, do it an load/runtime. one way of doing
> it w
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 12:31 PM, David Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 12:46:28PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 1:27 PM, PaX Team wrote:
>>>
>>> On 18 Feb 2016 at 12:34, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>>>
However, that does not fix the issue Kees is trying to solve, wh
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 12:46:28PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 1:27 PM, PaX Team wrote:
On 18 Feb 2016 at 12:34, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
However, that does not fix the issue Kees is trying to solve, where a
.rodata section is emitted with the "x" bit set, which causes the
li
On 22 Feb 2016 at 12:46, Kees Cook wrote:
> GCC really wants to declare the section. :(
hmm, i see, so how about going about it another way. instead of trying
to do this at compile/link time, do it an load/runtime. one way of doing
it would be to preserve a page in .rodata then map in a code page
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 1:27 PM, PaX Team wrote:
> On 18 Feb 2016 at 12:34, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>
>> However, that does not fix the issue Kees is trying to solve, where a
>> .rodata section is emitted with the "x" bit set, which causes the
>> linker to complain:
>>
>> /tmp/cc50ffWw.s: Assembler
On 18 Feb 2016 at 12:34, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> However, that does not fix the issue Kees is trying to solve, where a
> .rodata section is emitted with the "x" bit set, which causes the
> linker to complain:
>
> /tmp/cc50ffWw.s: Assembler messages:
> /tmp/cc50ffWw.s:2: Warning: setting incorrect
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 4:46 AM, Ard Biesheuvel
wrote:
> On 18 February 2016 at 13:07, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> On Thursday 18 February 2016 12:34:50 Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>>>
>>> We have __section() as an alias for __attribute__((__section__())), so
>>> we could use that instead.
>>>
>>> However,
On 18 February 2016 at 13:07, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thursday 18 February 2016 12:34:50 Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>>
>> We have __section() as an alias for __attribute__((__section__())), so
>> we could use that instead.
>>
>> However, that does not fix the issue Kees is trying to solve, where a
>>
On Thursday 18 February 2016 12:34:50 Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>
> We have __section() as an alias for __attribute__((__section__())), so
> we could use that instead.
>
> However, that does not fix the issue Kees is trying to solve, where a
> .rodata section is emitted with the "x" bit set, which ca
On 18 February 2016 at 12:34, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 18 February 2016 at 11:32, PaX Team wrote:
>> On 17 Feb 2016 at 12:29, Kees Cook wrote:
>>
>>> >> +static void __attribute__((__section__(".rodata,\"a\",@progbits#")))
>>> >> +do_nothing_rodata(void)
>>> >> +{
>>> >> + return;
>>> >>
On 18 February 2016 at 11:32, PaX Team wrote:
> On 17 Feb 2016 at 12:29, Kees Cook wrote:
>
>> >> +static void __attribute__((__section__(".rodata,\"a\",@progbits#")))
>> >> +do_nothing_rodata(void)
>> >> +{
>> >> + return;
>> >> +}
>> >> +
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >
>> > This doesn't cross compil
On 17 Feb 2016 at 12:29, Kees Cook wrote:
> >> +static void __attribute__((__section__(".rodata,\"a\",@progbits#")))
> >> +do_nothing_rodata(void)
> >> +{
> >> + return;
> >> +}
> >> +
> >
> >
> >>
> >
> > This doesn't cross compile for me on arm64 with two different toolchains
> >
> > CC dr
On Wednesday 17 February 2016 22:44:12 Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 16 February 2016 13:49:04 Kees Cook wrote:
> > }
> >
> > +static void __attribute__((__section__(".rodata,\"a\",@progbits#")))
> > +do_nothing_rodata(void)
> > +{
> > + return;
> > +}
> > +
> > static void do_nothing
On Tuesday 16 February 2016 13:49:04 Kees Cook wrote:
> }
>
> +static void __attribute__((__section__(".rodata,\"a\",@progbits#")))
> +do_nothing_rodata(void)
> +{
> + return;
> +}
> +
> static void do_nothing(void)
> {
>
I think this also needs to be marked "noinline" to ensure that t
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 12:29 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 5:06 PM, Laura Abbott wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 02/16/2016 01:49 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>>>
>>> Make sure that the read-only data section isn't executable.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook
>>> ---
>>> drivers/misc/lkdtm.c | 28
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 5:06 PM, Laura Abbott wrote:
>
>
> On 02/16/2016 01:49 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>>
>> Make sure that the read-only data section isn't executable.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook
>> ---
>> drivers/misc/lkdtm.c | 28 +---
>> 1 file changed, 21 insertion
On 02/16/2016 01:49 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
Make sure that the read-only data section isn't executable.
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook
---
drivers/misc/lkdtm.c | 28 +---
1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/misc/lkdtm.c b/drivers/misc/lkdtm
Make sure that the read-only data section isn't executable.
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook
---
drivers/misc/lkdtm.c | 28 +---
1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/misc/lkdtm.c b/drivers/misc/lkdtm.c
index 11fdadc68e53..9835fcc0506e 100644
---
20 matches
Mail list logo
