Anyone protecting the stack?

[Hiten Pandya]

Kip Macy 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.
	Naturally, 80% is better than 0%, and if it is under a
	securelevel, then I certainly do not see a problem with
	it, and I don't have any technical objections to this
	feature under a securelevel... I apologise for being
	a little confusing. :-)
	I was only following up to it, as far as flagging ELF files
	was concerned; I mean, I was wondering in that case, how the
	emulated files would be run.  But since you have mentioned
	*securelevels*, I am sure most do not run emulated binaries
	under those environments.
	And regarding the ``Patch page'', it's just an idea that might
	have a better effect.  By that, I mean, it will get more tested
	and updated over time, and once it reaches a fairly stable stage
	it can then be committed.
	Regards,

--
Hiten Pandya
hmp at xxxxxxxxxxxxx