On Thu, Jul 04, 2013 at 05:24:20PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
From: Theo de Raadt dera...@cvs.openbsd.org
Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2013 09:04:54 -0600
I suspect the best approach would be a hybrid value. The upper half
of the address should try to land in an unmapped zone, or into the zero
On Thu, Jul 04, 2013 at 05:24:20PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
From: Theo de Raadt dera...@cvs.openbsd.org
Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2013 09:04:54 -0600
I suspect the best approach would be a hybrid value. The upper half
of the address should try to land in an unmapped zone, or into the
On Wed, Jul 03, 2013 at 17:21, Theo de Raadt wrote:
+ int pval = 0xd0d0caca;
Can you explain the choice of this?
I thought it sounded clever.
Ok, because there's more to the picture.
Inside the kernel, we tend to use 0xdeadbeef, or the DEADBEEF0/DEADBEEF1 values.
Reason for the
From: Theo de Raadt dera...@cvs.openbsd.org
Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2013 09:04:54 -0600
I suspect the best approach would be a hybrid value. The upper half
of the address should try to land in an unmapped zone, or into the zero
page, or into some address space hole, ir into super high memory
From: Theo de Raadt dera...@cvs.openbsd.org
Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2013 09:04:54 -0600
I suspect the best approach would be a hybrid value. The upper half
of the address should try to land in an unmapped zone, or into the zero
page, or into some address space hole, ir into super high
+ int pval = 0xd0d0caca;
Can you explain the choice of this?
There are arguments to make this MI; other arguments to make it MD;
and other arguments to introduce a bit of randomness.
I'd like to know which arguments you have
On Wed, Jul 03, 2013 at 17:21, Theo de Raadt wrote:
+ int pval = 0xd0d0caca;
Can you explain the choice of this?
I thought it sounded clever.
There are arguments to make this MI; other arguments to make it MD;
and other arguments to introduce a bit of randomness.
I'd like to know
