Re: Anyone protecting the stack?

[Sander Vesik <sander@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Kip Macy <kmacy@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hiten -
> If it complicates pmap for i386 as Dave says, then I have to agree that it
> is an unneccessary distraction that should be postponed. However, if it
> didn't please explain to me why securelevel isn't an adequate solution?
> Granted it won't protect desktops, but an 80% solution is better than a 0%
> solution.
> 

If there is a need to treat it as a limited option, it could even be a 
kernel compile option - those who need or want the extra protection could
still use it - but I don't personaly think the option is quite drastic
enough to require such. 

Its not a different ABI (like separate control stack) or anything.

>                        -Kip
> 

-- 
	Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++