From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264441AbTLVLKH (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Dec 2003 06:10:07 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264482AbTLVLKH (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Dec 2003 06:10:07 -0500 Received: from node-d-1fcf.a2000.nl ([62.195.31.207]:46722 "EHLO laptop.fenrus.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264441AbTLVLKB (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Dec 2003 06:10:01 -0500 Subject: Re: [test] exec-shield vs. paxtest 0.9.5 horrible results From: Arjan van de Ven Reply-To: arjanv@redhat.com To: Gabor MICSKO Cc: LKML , mingo@elte.hu In-Reply-To: <1072090466.1471.4.camel@gmicsko03> References: <1072090466.1471.4.camel@gmicsko03> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-RreqdAs7o6DMOaMLzb4C" Organization: Red Hat, Inc. Message-Id: <1072091389.5223.1.camel@laptop.fenrus.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5 (1.4.5-7) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 12:09:49 +0100 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --=-RreqdAs7o6DMOaMLzb4C Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, 2003-12-22 at 11:54, Gabor MICSKO wrote: > gmicsko03:/home/trey/devel/exploit/paxtest-0.9.5# uname -a > Linux gmicsko03 2.6.0 #1 Thu Dec 18 12:32:44 CET 2003 i686 GNU/Linux applications have the option to disable exec-shield themselves for them. pax-test at one point did this deliberately (in order to simulate glibc 2.2 behavior according to the author); are you using a version of paxtest that does this ? --=-RreqdAs7o6DMOaMLzb4C Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQA/5tD9xULwo51rQBIRAuj8AJ9nC20YdpnChWdDyeU1+VSzVMX/qACcCTMR gTm1uS6m14fE0kV1qrc7u1k= =y4U6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-RreqdAs7o6DMOaMLzb4C--