Stephen
On Fri, 7 Aug 1998, David Burrows wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Aug 1998, Mark H. Wood wrote:
>
> > Actually I think of the nonexecutable stack patch as a *detector* for
> > problem code, not a cure for it. When I see messages about trying to
> > execute the stack, I know I have a busted program so I can fix it and
> > yell at the maintainer for letting out buggy code. To me this is more
> > secure than just assuming that every coder in the world has set up the
> > right compilation options or completely desk-checked and tested his code.
>
> I would agree with this reasoning if there was some way of transparently
> doing this, without effecting other programs.. And a configurable option,
> perhaps maybe enabled only if debug is set.
>
> Anyone?
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html
>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html