Re: Anyone protecting the stack?

[Hiten Pandya <hmp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Kip Macy wrote:

> Hiten -
> If it complicates pmap for i386 as Dave says, then I have to agree that it
> is an unneccessary distraction that should be postponed. However, if it
> didn't please explain to me why securelevel isn't an adequate solution?
> Granted it won't protect desktops, but an 80% solution is better than a 0%
> solution.

	Naturally, 80% is better than 0%, and if it is under a
	securelevel, then I certainly do not see a problem with
	it, and I don't have any technical objections to this
	feature under a securelevel... I apologise for being
	a little confusing. :-)

	I was only following up to it, as far as flagging ELF files
	was concerned; I mean, I was wondering in that case, how the
	emulated files would be run.  But since you have mentioned
	*securelevels*, I am sure most do not run emulated binaries
	under those environments.

	And regarding the ``Patch page'', it's just an idea that might
	have a better effect.  By that, I mean, it will get more tested
	and updated over time, and once it reaches a fairly stable stage
	it can then be committed.

	Regards,

--
Hiten Pandya
hmp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx