Simplicity? push something to the stack, decrement the address, and if you've gone negative, you've gone too far?
PUSH DEC BN stack overrun BZ stack overrun sorry, PC assembler is a long time past, but I vaguely remember the argument being made that top down stacking was easier to manage. Garry E. Ward Senior Software Specialist Maritz Research Automotive Research Group 419-725-4123 -----Original Message----- From: Greg Smith [mailto:rys@;epaibm.rtpnc.epa.gov] Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 1:33 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Probably the first published shell code example for Linux/390 Ross Patterson wrote: > At 11:08 10/30/2002 -0500, Post, Mark K wrote: > >> And the key point here is that "getting in" simply requires modifying >> known >> exploits against vulnerable software with an S/390-specific payload. > > > But it didn't have to be this way. If Linas Vepstas et al. had been able > to finish the "Bigfoot" i370 port or if his attempts to influence the IBM > s390 port had been successful, we wouldn't have this problem. Linas' port > of GCC for "Bigfoot" had the stack growing *upward*, not *downward* as on > almost every other platform. I've always been curious. Why is a top down stack used anyways ?? Of course I've been using a bottom up stack for almost 30 yrs so I might be biased ;-) Greg <font size="1">Confidentiality Warning: This e-mail contains information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this e-mail is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, any dissemination, publication or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. The sender does not accept any responsibility for any loss, disruption or damage to your data or computer system that may occur while using data contained in, or transmitted with, this e-mail. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify us by return e-mail. Thank you.
