On 30 March 2010 04:18, Gonzalo Tornaria <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 8:16 PM, Dr. David Kirkby > <[email protected]> wrote: >> I don't know how practical it is going to be for a Sage developer to change >> the the source code of PARI, NTL and whatever else has this problem, to add >> mprotect() where needed. I suspect that might be a bit difficult, and >> perhaps slow the code. > > uh? > >> The reason I used that code was to check if executing the stack caused a >> problem. As such, there was little point in me adding mprotect - it rather >> defeated the object of the program. > > I presume that the software which wants to execute code in the stack > makes the call the mprotect as needed. > > The proper code (with the call to mprotect) shows that executing the > stack doesn't cause a problem, if you follow the posix standard [ > stack is not executable by default (only this wasn't enforced before > cpus had NX support). ] YMMV, but you didn't post any evidence on the > contrary. > > Did you try the fixed code (i.e. with call to mprotect) both in a > non-SELinux and a SELinux enabled kernel to see if there actually is a > difference? Running the code under strace(1) may help know what is > going on. I'd guess that SELinux will return EACCESS in the mprotect > call... > > Gonzalo
I'll try it later under Solaris. I have no access to SELinux myself. Dave -- To post to this group, send an email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-devel+unsubscribegooglegroups.com or reply to this email with the words "REMOVE ME" as the subject.
