Hi! > Solution proposed in this RFC > ============================= > > >From this RFC's perspective, there are two scenarios for dynamic code: > > Scenario 1 > ---------- > > We know what code we need only at runtime. For instance, JIT code generated > for frequently executed Java methods. Only at runtime do we know what > methods need to be JIT compiled. Such code cannot be statically defined. It > has to be generated at runtime. > > Scenario 2 > ---------- > > We know what code we need in advance. User trampolines are a good example of > this. It is possible to define such code statically with some help from the > kernel. > > This RFC addresses (2). (1) needs a general purpose trusted code generator > and is out of scope for this RFC. This is slightly less crazy talk than introduction talking about holes in W^X. But it is very, very far from normal Unix system, where you have selection of interpretters to run your malware on (sh, python, awk, emacs, ...) and often you can even compile malware from sources. And as you noted, we don't have "a general purpose trusted code generator" for our systems. I believe you should simply delete confusing "introduction" and provide details of super-secure system where your patches would be useful, instead. Best regards, Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
