On Mon, Aug 08, 2005 at 06:38:24AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > This kernel was compiled on another machine and installed by hand > > instead of going through kpkg. Unfortunately I don't have the sources > > anymore, but I don't recall installing any patches, which I understand > > would be necessary for "grsecurity". I did spend a while playing with > > various kernel patches on another machine, so it's possible I'm mixed up > > and installed that kernel here, but I'd figured out kpkg by that time so > > I probably would have a kernel package if I'd done that. > > Sure. It seems there's been another report of this problem with a 2.4.18 > kernel, and I guess the origin of the incompatibility has also been > identified: > > 08:47 <waldi> mprotect(0xbffff000, 4096, > PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE|PROT_EXEC|PROT_GROWSDOWN) = -1 EINVAL (Invalid argument) > 08:47 <waldi> mprotect(0xbfff8000, 32768, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE|PROT_EXEC) = > -1 EFAULT (Bad address) > 08:55 <waldi> PROT_GROWSDOWN seems to be new in 2.4.21 and 2.5
I have no idea why waldi thinks PROT_GROWSDOWN is the problem. Rather, the EFAULT is the problem. At a guess, this is the case that we expect ENOMEM for in dl-execstack.c, but 2.4.18 is returning EFAULT instead for the same case. This whole thing looks a bit fishy, since it could be making random other bits writable... but that won't happen in recent kernels, anyway. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery, LLC -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
