Subject: Re: segvguard [was: Re: CVS commit: src/sys/sys]
To: None <tech-kern@NetBSD.org, tech-security@NetBSD.org>
From: Terry Moore <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 11/30/2006 09:25:16
I hesitate to comment at all, and I really don't like cross-posting,
but it seems that this thread is in both places....
As an outsider who's been reading these messages with interest for
the last few months, it's very confusing to have two things called
pax -- one an archiver, and one a security package.
At 04:17 PM 11/30/2006 +0200, Elad Efrat wrote:
>YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
> > i don't think it's my responsibility to find a better way.
>nobody says it is. :)
> > i'm just wondering if these features are worth to eat these bits.
>that is an issue we will deal with once we run out of bits and there
>is a need for them.
>btw, we could always add a new elf phdr type, say PT_PAX (instead of
>using PT_NOTE as we do now). then we can just make its p_flags act
>differently. how's that?