On Tue, 20 Jun 2017 08:42:39 -0700 stan wrote: > My > assumption was that this was adding the strong stack protection to the > kernel side of things. That seems like it might be impossible without architecture changes in the chips to allow bounds checking the stack pointer in hardware (which certainly wouldn't fix any existing systems :-). > As the > exploit report said, enabling strong stack protection in the compiler > for affected libraries would stop this exploit, but would be > expensive. I assume that means it slows execution. So maybe the proper solution is to static link all the setuid binaries, and not drag everything else on the system down? _______________________________________________ users mailing list -- users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
