On Wed Jan 26 2011 at 13:48:32 -0500, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> Module Name: src
> Committed By: christos
> Date: Wed Jan 26 18:48:32 UTC 2011
>
> Modified Files:
> src/lib/librumphijack: hijack.c
>
> Log Message:
> make SSP friendly
Can you add a comment stating why readlink and g
In article <20110127140249.gd23...@cs.hut.fi>,
Antti Kantee wrote:
>On Wed Jan 26 2011 at 13:48:32 -0500, Christos Zoulas wrote:
>> Module Name: src
>> Committed By:christos
>> Date:Wed Jan 26 18:48:32 UTC 2011
>>
>> Modified Files:
>> src/lib/librumphijack: hijack.c
On Mon Feb 07 2011 at 11:51:02 +, Antti Kantee wrote:
> Module Name: src
> Committed By: pooka
> Date: Mon Feb 7 11:51:02 UTC 2011
>
> Modified Files:
> src/lib/librumphijack: hijack.c
>
> Log Message:
> Unbreak the ssp lossage from the default -current build by removing
> it.
In article <20110207124333.gg15...@cs.hut.fi>,
Antti Kantee wrote:
>On Mon Feb 07 2011 at 11:51:02 +, Antti Kantee wrote:
>> Module Name: src
>> Committed By:pooka
>> Date:Mon Feb 7 11:51:02 UTC 2011
>>
>> Modified Files:
>> src/lib/librumphijack: hijack.c
>>
>
On Tue Feb 08 2011 at 05:15:39 +, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> In article <20110207124333.gg15...@cs.hut.fi>,
> Antti Kantee wrote:
> >On Mon Feb 07 2011 at 11:51:02 +, Antti Kantee wrote:
> >> Module Name: src
> >> Committed By: pooka
> >> Date: Mon Feb 7 11:51:02 UT
On Feb 8, 5:01pm, po...@cs.hut.fi (Antti Kantee) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: CVS commit: src/lib/librumphijack
| On Tue Feb 08 2011 at 05:15:39 +, Christos Zoulas wrote:
| > In article <20110207124333.gg15...@cs.hut.fi>,
| > Antti Kantee wrote:
| > >On Mon Feb 07 2011 at 11:
On Tue Feb 08 2011 at 15:03:11 -0500, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> [explanation]
>
> In your c code then in hijack.c you need to define the body of _hijack_read.
> You also end up needing to define the bodies of readlink and getcwd, but
> that is easily done...
>
> I hope that helps. The trick to und
On Feb 8, 10:30pm, po...@cs.hut.fi (Antti Kantee) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: CVS commit: src/lib/librumphijack
| On Tue Feb 08 2011 at 15:03:11 -0500, Christos Zoulas wrote:
| > [explanation]
| >
| > In your c code then in hijack.c you need to define the body of _hijack_read.
| > You
On Tue, Feb 08, 2011 at 03:34:54PM -0500, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> Still the problem remains, how do we stack the calls to insert the ssp
> check at the top level, without resorting to rtld tricks?
Let me try to summarize the situation to make sure I get it right:
The fortification code wants to
On Tue Feb 08 2011 at 22:00:49 +0100, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 08, 2011 at 03:34:54PM -0500, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> > Still the problem remains, how do we stack the calls to insert the ssp
> > check at the top level, without resorting to rtld tricks?
>
> Let me try to summarize th
On Tue Feb 08 2011 at 23:22:44 +0200, Antti Kantee wrote:
> On Tue Feb 08 2011 at 22:00:49 +0100, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 08, 2011 at 03:34:54PM -0500, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> > > Still the problem remains, how do we stack the calls to insert the ssp
> > > check at the top level,
On Tue, Feb 08, 2011 at 11:22:44PM +0200, Antti Kantee wrote:
> On Tue Feb 08 2011 at 22:00:49 +0100, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 08, 2011 at 03:34:54PM -0500, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> > > Still the problem remains, how do we stack the calls to insert the ssp
> > > check at the top le
On Tue Feb 08 2011 at 22:41:57 +0100, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 08, 2011 at 11:22:44PM +0200, Antti Kantee wrote:
> > On Tue Feb 08 2011 at 22:00:49 +0100, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 08, 2011 at 03:34:54PM -0500, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> > > > Still the problem remain
On Tue Feb 08 2011 at 23:04:35 +0100, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> > > > No, it wants to override "whatever is the symbol applications are
> > > > resolved to". For -current this is "_sys_read" (on nb5 it's "read").
> > >
> > > That's not what the library is doing according to nm. It defines "read
On Tue, Feb 08, 2011 at 11:43:40PM +0200, Antti Kantee wrote:
> On Tue Feb 08 2011 at 22:41:57 +0100, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 08, 2011 at 11:22:44PM +0200, Antti Kantee wrote:
> > > On Tue Feb 08 2011 at 22:00:49 +0100, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Feb 08, 2011 at 03:
In article <20110208210049.ga8...@britannica.bec.de>,
Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
>On Tue, Feb 08, 2011 at 03:34:54PM -0500, Christos Zoulas wrote:
>> Still the problem remains, how do we stack the calls to insert the ssp
>> check at the top level, without resorting to rtld tricks?
>
>Let me try to
In article <20110208220435.ga10...@britannica.bec.de>,
Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
>On Tue, Feb 08, 2011 at 11:43:40PM +0200, Antti Kantee wrote:
>> On Tue Feb 08 2011 at 22:41:57 +0100, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
>> > On Tue, Feb 08, 2011 at 11:22:44PM +0200, Antti Kantee wrote:
>> > > On Tue Feb 0
In article <20110208212244.gk22...@cs.hut.fi>,
Antti Kantee wrote:
>On Tue Feb 08 2011 at 22:00:49 +0100, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 08, 2011 at 03:34:54PM -0500, Christos Zoulas wrote:
>> > Still the problem remains, how do we stack the calls to insert the ssp
>> > check at the top
On Wed, Feb 09, 2011 at 02:30:38AM +, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> >To get the layering correct, we could make the fortification code define
> >another prototype and use double rename, e.g.
> >
> >ssize_t __real_read(int __fd, ...) __RENAME(read);
> >
> >__ssp_inline ssize_t read(int __fd, ...) __R
On Wed Feb 09 2011 at 02:32:17 +, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> >And, on a tangent, it would really help if we had some mechanism for
> >"latest version of symbol exported by libc" (cf. mess with select,
> >pollts, kevent and socket). For working compat, I guess we'd need to
> >bump rumphijack majo
On Wed, Feb 09, 2011 at 14:06:08 +0200, Antti Kantee wrote:
> On Wed Feb 09 2011 at 02:32:17 +, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> > >And, on a tangent, it would really help if we had some mechanism for
> > >"latest version of symbol exported by libc" (cf. mess with select,
> > >pollts, kevent and socke
On Sat Feb 19 2011 at 14:58:45 +0100, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 01:10:36PM +, Antti Kantee wrote:
> > Module Name:src
> > Committed By: pooka
> > Date: Sat Feb 19 13:10:35 UTC 2011
> >
> > Modified Files:
> > src/lib/librumphijack: hija
On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 01:10:36PM +, Antti Kantee wrote:
> Module Name: src
> Committed By: pooka
> Date: Sat Feb 19 13:10:35 UTC 2011
>
> Modified Files:
> src/lib/librumphijack: hijack.c
>
> Log Message:
> hijack __getcwd()
Why?
Joerg
On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 07:54:25PM +0200, Antti Kantee wrote:
> On Sat Feb 19 2011 at 14:58:45 +0100, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 01:10:36PM +, Antti Kantee wrote:
> > > Module Name: src
> > > Committed By: pooka
> > > Date: Sat Feb 19 13:10:35 UTC
On Sun Feb 20 2011 at 04:34:02 +0100, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 07:54:25PM +0200, Antti Kantee wrote:
> > On Sat Feb 19 2011 at 14:58:45 +0100, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> > > On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 01:10:36PM +, Antti Kantee wrote:
> > > > Module Name:src
> > > >
> Module Name: src
> Committed By: pooka
> Date: Mon Feb 7 19:34:39 UTC 2011
>
> Modified Files:
> src/lib/librumphijack: hijack.c
>
> Log Message:
> Force gcc to generate a stack frame for the call to dlsym(RTLD_NEXT).
> Without this hack at least amd64 -O2 just used jmp and The
On Mon Feb 21 2011 at 23:19:47 +, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
> > Module Name:src
> > Committed By: pooka
> > Date: Mon Feb 7 19:34:39 UTC 2011
> >
> > Modified Files:
> > src/lib/librumphijack: hijack.c
> >
> > Log Message:
> > Force gcc to generate a stack frame
> On Mon Feb 21 2011 at 23:19:47 +, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
>> > Module Name: src
>> > Committed By: pooka
>> > Date: Mon Feb 7 19:34:39 UTC 2011
>> >
>> > Modified Files:
>> >src/lib/librumphijack: hijack.c
>> >
>> > Log Message:
>> > Force gcc to generate a stac
On Wed Feb 23 2011 at 01:31:51 +, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
> > On Mon Feb 21 2011 at 23:19:47 +, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
> >> > Module Name: src
> >> > Committed By:pooka
> >> > Date:Mon Feb 7 19:34:39 UTC 2011
> >> >
> >> > Modified Files:
> >> > src/lib/librumphijack
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 16:01:42 +, Antti Kantee wrote:
> Module Name: src
> Committed By: pooka
> Date: Fri Feb 25 16:01:42 UTC 2011
>
> Modified Files:
> src/lib/librumphijack: Makefile hijackdlsym.c
>
> Log Message:
> Ok, for reasons I can't begin to understand, the binarie
On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 08:12:37 +0300, Valeriy E. Ushakov wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 16:01:42 +, Antti Kantee wrote:
>
> > Module Name:src
> > Committed By: pooka
> > Date: Fri Feb 25 16:01:42 UTC 2011
> >
> > Modified Files:
> > src/lib/librumphijack:
> > cvs rdiff -u -r1.7 -r1.8 src/lib/librumphijack/Makefile
> > cvs rdiff -u -r1.1 -r1.2 src/lib/librumphijack/hijackdlsym.c
>
> I think this is caused by revision 1.121 of rtld.c (hi, mac!) that
> added "hackish_return_address" for ppc.
>
> #ifdef __powerpc__
> static void *
> hackish_return_ad
On Sun Feb 27 2011 at 08:12:37 +0300, Valeriy E. Ushakov wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 16:01:42 +, Antti Kantee wrote:
>
> > Module Name:src
> > Committed By: pooka
> > Date: Fri Feb 25 16:01:42 UTC 2011
> >
> > Modified Files:
> > src/lib/librumphijack: Mak
On 03/09/11 16:03, Antti Kantee wrote:
Module Name:src
Committed By: pooka
Date: Wed Mar 9 15:03:18 UTC 2011
Modified Files:
src/lib/librumphijack: hijack.c
Log Message:
Add a bunch of process-wide hijack calls. Among other things, it's
now possible to use unmodified u
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 23:02:56 +, Antti Kantee wrote:
> Use rumphijack_dlsym() to figure out where __sysctl() is during
> init. Otherwise powerpc dlsym() DTWT and returns NULL.
> (now i have no idea why dlsym() it works from rcinit(), but i'll
> opt to not care)
I don't remember if I broug
On Fri Mar 11 2011 at 03:34:47 +0300, Valeriy E. Ushakov wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 23:02:56 +, Antti Kantee wrote:
>
> > Use rumphijack_dlsym() to figure out where __sysctl() is during
> > init. Otherwise powerpc dlsym() DTWT and returns NULL.
> > (now i have no idea why dlsym() it wor
36 matches
Mail list logo
