From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265626AbUAPQIv (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Jan 2004 11:08:51 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265630AbUAPQIv (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Jan 2004 11:08:51 -0500 Received: from gprs214-224.eurotel.cz ([160.218.214.224]:9600 "EHLO amd.ucw.cz") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265626AbUAPQIt (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Jan 2004 11:08:49 -0500 Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 17:08:41 +0100 From: Pavel Machek To: Aaron Lehmann Cc: Jesper Juhl , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Eric Youngdale , Eric Youngdale Subject: Re: [PATCH] stronger ELF sanity checks v2 Message-ID: <20040116160841.GA302@elf.ucw.cz> References: <20040113033234.GD2000@vitelus.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040113033234.GD2000@vitelus.com> X-Warning: Reading this can be dangerous to your mental health. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi! > On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 02:55:07AM +0100, Jesper Juhl wrote: > > Here's the second version of my patch to add better sanity checks for > > binfmt_elf > > I assume this breaks Brian Raiter's tiny ELF executables[1]. Even > though these binaries are evil hacks that don't comply to standards > and serve no serious purpose, I'm not sure what the purpose of the > sanity checks is. Are there any risks associated with running > non-compliant ELF executables? (Now that I mention it, the You get vy ugly behaviour. If you compile executable with huge static data, it will compile okay, link okay, *launch okay* and die on segfault. That's wrong, it should have died on -ENOMEM during exec. Pavel -- When do you have a heart between your knees? [Johanka's followup: and *two* hearts?]