Justin Handville wrote:
> > pledge does not drop access to system calls. It blocks the *action*
> > of it, inside the kernel. You are muddling things together far too much.
>
> That's a matter of semantics. The point is that pledge reduces attack surface
> by
> reducing what a program is
Theo de Raadt wrote:
> going to use the other 95% of your text segment which, due to static-linking,
> you have placed at very convenient fixed-offset locations relative to whatever
> bug they find to exercise.
The static linking example is a bit of a red herring. Even if the program were
Justin Handville wrote:
> Theo de Raadt wrote:
>
> > > It's a cheap defense in depth protection that simplifies my use
> > > case.
>
> > But I don't see a real security benefit of what you are trying to do.
>
> There may not be. At this point, it's more idiomatic. Don't need code?
> Don't
Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > It's a cheap defense in depth protection that simplifies my use
> > case.
> But I don't see a real security benefit of what you are trying to do.
There may not be. At this point, it's more idiomatic. Don't need code?
Don't keep it. It's an experimental feature. I'm not
Justin Handville wrote:
> Dave Voutila wrote:
>
> > Have you considered a libexec approach instead? If the goal is to keep a
> > child process having only the executable pages it needs for operations,
> > why not split up the program design instead of mucking with ELF stuff?
> > That surely
Dave Voutila wrote:
> Have you considered a libexec approach instead? If the goal is to keep a
> child process having only the executable pages it needs for operations,
> why not split up the program design instead of mucking with ELF stuff?
> That surely has to be even more portable.
I have.
Justin Handville wrote:
> I'm assuming that misc@ is probably the best place for this e-mail,
> although it gets a bit in the tech@ weeds. I upgraded to 7.3 not so
> long ago, and I noticed that a daemon I had written was no longer
> working properly. For reasons that are probably too much to
Justin Handville writes:
> I'm assuming that misc@ is probably the best place for this e-mail,
> although it gets a bit in the tech@ weeds. I upgraded to 7.3 not so
> long ago, and I noticed that a daemon I had written was no longer
> working properly. For reasons that are probably too much
8 matches
Mail list logo
