Bugtraq mailing list archives
Re: http://www.smashguard.org
From: Nicholas Weaver <nweaver () CS berkeley edu>
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2004 10:11:36 -0800
On Fri, Feb 06, 2004 at 03:29:30PM -0500, Hilmi Ozdoganoglu composed:
Agreed, the software based approach does not take a significant performance hit, but the hardware approach is transparent to the user and does not require recompilation of the source code. Therefore, all programs can run securely on a machine whether or not they are "compiled securely" (e.g. legacy software).
Not all control flow follows stack logic. So you can't claim backwards compatibility on all programs. What happens if you are compiling continuations, such as a high-performance ML or scheme environment? A scheme environment may often need to keep around call-stacks after they are exited, because call-with-current-continuation can cause them to be reentered again. Similarly, you mention the problem with user-land threads, yet specifically don't solve it (just handwave it a bit). Likewise, what happens on table-blowout? You are using fixed-sized tables, what happens when they fill up (and they WILL fill up. Resources in a CPU should be 0, 1, or infinite, at least from the user's point of view). -- Nicholas C. Weaver nweaver () cs berkeley edu
Current thread:
- http://www.smashguard.org Hilmi Ozdoganoglu (Feb 02)
- RE: http://www.smashguard.org Dave Paris (Feb 03)
- Re: http://www.smashguard.org Nicholas Weaver (Feb 03)
- RE: http://www.smashguard.org Hilmi Ozdoganoglu (Feb 07)
- Re: http://www.smashguard.org Theo de Raadt (Feb 07)
- Re[2]: http://www.smashguard.org Andrey Kolishak (Feb 09)
- Re: http://www.smashguard.org Crispin Cowan (Feb 09)
- Re: http://www.smashguard.org Theo de Raadt (Feb 10)
- Re: http://www.smashguard.org Nicholas Weaver (Feb 09)
- RE: http://www.smashguard.org Dave Paris (Feb 03)
- Re: http://www.smashguard.org Seth Arnold (Feb 05)