> On Thu, Jul 04, 2013 at 05:24:20PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > > From: Theo de Raadt
> > > 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
> > 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 i
> > From: Theo de Raadt
> > 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 above
> >
> From: Theo de Raadt
> 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 above
> the stack whi
> 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.
Reas
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 t
> + 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
