On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 12:15:06PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | > I suspect we both agree that it's desirable to have thread stacks | > non-executable as well. | | on one hand you acknowledge that it's better to have non-exec thread | stacks but on the other hand you argued that | | > it's not a bugfix to break apps that rely on an executable stack - the | > stack _is_ executable. | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ | | as they say, you can't have it both ways.
He's saying that there's no reason to have an executable stack for programs which never attempt to execute code on the stack---and having a non-executable stack in such circumstances gives you a security advantage---but it is not okay for the operating system to break those programs which /do/ rely on the stack being executable. Now could you please stop wasting everybody's time by continuing this thread? Ingo has already stated that he won't continue arguing with you, and I don't intend to continue posting in this thread after this message either. Cameron.