no more buffer overflows

Archaic archaic at indy.rr.com
Mon May 5 14:52:07 PDT 2003


On Mon, May 05, 2003 at 11:35:29PM +0200, Matthias Benkmann wrote:
> 
> If I understood this correctly, the binutils patch is always necessary if
> you want ASCII armor relocation. The kernel can not relocate the addresses
> used inside the program as those are hardcoded into the executable (unless
> it's compiled with -fPIC as shared libs are). The ASCII armor relocation
> is something you can use in addition to what the kernel patch does
> (although the kernel patch is probably necessary for the relocation to
> work, but I'm not sure about that)

I'm starting to think there are few subscribed to this list judging by
the nearly non-existant discussion. BTW, Dan, since you're the OP, do
you happen to know if the binutils patch is being ported to FSF
binutils?

-- 
Archaic

-- 
The price of liberty is, always has been, and always will be blood.  The
person who is not willing to die for his liberty has already lost it to
the first scoundrel who is willing to risk dying to violate that
person's liberty.  Are you free?

- Andrew Ford

-- 
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-security' in the subject header of the message



More information about the lfs-security mailing list