From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1575 invoked by alias); 28 Feb 2009 20:04:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 1566 invoked by uid 22791); 28 Feb 2009 20:04:21 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from out1.smtp.messagingengine.com (HELO out1.smtp.messagingengine.com) (66.111.4.25) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sat, 28 Feb 2009 20:04:11 +0000 Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.internal [10.202.2.41]) by out1.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 359792CF405 for ; Sat, 28 Feb 2009 15:04:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from heartbeat2.messagingengine.com ([10.202.2.161]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Sat, 28 Feb 2009 15:04:08 -0500 Received: from [192.168.1.3] (user-0cej09l.cable.mindspring.com [24.233.129.53]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CAB2029F2D; Sat, 28 Feb 2009 15:04:07 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <49A998AC.8010000@cwilson.fastmail.fm> Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 20:04:00 -0000 From: Charles Wilson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.8.1.19) Gecko/20081209 Thunderbird/2.0.0.19 Mnenhy/0.7.6.666 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: [1.7] rebaseall doesn't solve the problem References: <499F6682.1090204@cwilson.fastmail.fm> <20090224100616.GC6035@calimero.vinschen.de> <49A85971.6070300@cwilson.fastmail.fm> <20090228104337.GG19887@calimero.vinschen.de> <49A986B4.2080501@cwilson.fastmail.fm> <20090228195127.GA26646@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> In-Reply-To: <20090228195127.GA26646@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com X-SW-Source: 2009-02/txt/msg00718.txt.bz2 Christopher Faylor wrote: > It should be trivial to add this to binutils. Doesn't it ultimately > belong in ld and (maybe) objcopy? Well, I'm sure it would be useful there. However, just as ld can create a DLL with a user-specified image base, yet we still have a separate special purpose utility for rebasing them, it makes sense that ld can create an exe or dll with a specific pe_dll_characteristics flag, but a separate single-purpose utility to modify it is also useful. I really don't want Q. Random User to try and run objcopy on his entire installation... > I can add this now but I don't think it should be the default just yet. Agree. BTW, this was mentioned on the binutils list about two years ago, but nothing ever came of it: http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2007-02/msg00046.html > Do the exes themselves need this bit as well as the dlls? >From what I understand, ASLR makes sense for both DLLs and EXEs -- but only if the image has relocations (most DLLs, and PIE exectuables). TS-Aware makes sense only for EXEs according to Corinna. NX could be applied to any DLL or EXE (I think). My mistake in the existing alsr code was to always skip if no relocations -- so since we don't have PIE exes, you can't currently set the TS or NX flags on ordinary exes with the tool. -- Chuck -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/