This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sourceware.org mailing list for the GDB project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: RFC: Longjmp vs LD_POINTER_GUARD revisited

From: fche at redhat dot com (Frank Ch. Eigler)
To: Mark Kettenis <mark dot kettenis at xs4all dot nl>
Cc: joseph at codesourcery dot com, drow at false dot org, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org, pedro at codesourcery dot com, uweigand at de dot ibm dot com
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 10:13:49 -0500
Subject: Re: RFC: Longjmp vs LD_POINTER_GUARD revisited
References: <20091115173429.GB23483@caradoc.them.org> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0911151833510.28152@digraph.polyomino.org.uk> <200911152148.nAFLmYPK018249@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl>

Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl> writes:

>> [...]
> Isn't it a bit ridiculous that glibc, which is a GNU project, makes
> the life of GDB, another GNU project, so difficult?

Well, it's nothing personal.  If glibc made it trivial decrypt this
stuff on demand, it'd be just as easy for an attacker.  Maybe this is
a case for something akin to libthread_db.

- FChE

Follow-Ups:
- Re: RFC: Longjmp vs LD_POINTER_GUARD revisited
  - From: Paul Pluzhnikov
- Re: RFC: Longjmp vs LD_POINTER_GUARD revisited
  - From: Mark Kettenis

References:
- RFC: Longjmp vs LD_POINTER_GUARD revisited
  - From: Daniel Jacobowitz
- Re: RFC: Longjmp vs LD_POINTER_GUARD revisited
  - From: Joseph S. Myers
- Re: RFC: Longjmp vs LD_POINTER_GUARD revisited
  - From: Mark Kettenis

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]