Re: [PATCH] stronger ELF sanity checks v2

From: Aaron Lehmann (aaronl_at_vitelus.com)
Date: 01/13/04

  • Next message: Ben Collins: "Re: Sun Type5 Mapping 2.4 -> 2.6" 
    Date:	Mon, 12 Jan 2004 19:32:34 -0800
To: Jesper Juhl <juhl-lkml@dif.dk>

    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
    proof-of-concept exploit for the brk() hole comes to mind, but I don't
    know offhand if that did anything against the spec.) I don't mean to
    question the usefulness of your work, especially as I don't know much
    about ELF, but I'm personally curious about why you think additional
    sanity checks are worth a slight increase in code complexity.

    1. http://www.muppetlabs.com/~breadbox/software/tiny/
    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

  • Next message: Ben Collins: "Re: Sun Type5 Mapping 2.4 -> 2.6"

    Relevant Pages