Am 02.01.2015 um 23:54 schrieb Pavel Machek: > On Fri 2015-01-02 23:49:52, Jiri Kosina wrote: >> On Fri, 2 Jan 2015, Pavel Machek wrote: >> >>>> You also want to protect against binaries that are evil on purpose, >>>> right? >>> >>> Umm. No. Not by default. We don't want to break crashme or trinity by >>> default. >> >> I thought trinity is issuing syscalls directly (would make more sense than >> going through glibc, wouldn't it?) ... haven't checked the source though. > > Patch in this thread wanted to insert delays into kernel on SIGSEGV > processing. That's bad idea by default. No. This is not what this patch does. > But changing glibc to do sleep(30); abort(); instead of abort(); to > slow down bruteforcing of canaries makes some kind of sense... and > should be ok by default. As I saidn only focusing one the specific stack canary case is not enough. Thanks, //richard -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
