Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.arch.embedded > #29841
| From | Stefan Reuther <stefan.news@arcor.de> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.arch.embedded |
| Subject | Re: Memory Protections |
| Date | 2020-07-14 18:17 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <reksr0.3t0.1@stefan.msgid.phost.de> (permalink) |
| References | <reig95$pab$1@dont-email.me> <9b1rgf5mn82jguosum324pja890g91pnf5@4ax.com> |
Am 14.07.2020 um 12:21 schrieb George Neuner: > On Mon, 13 Jul 2020 13:30:16 -0700, Don Y >> For no-execute, I don't see any use beyond that of enhancing >> confidence in the codebase; I don't see any *features* that >> rely on detecting "legal" attempts to execute particular >> regions of memory (assuming execute-access is treated as >> a special case of read-access). >> >> The ONE question I am posing here is "are there any?" > > I'm not sure what you're getting at here: what would be a "legal" > attempt to execute NX protected memory? > > Obviously something like a JIT compiler needs to be able to switch off > NX for the code buffer so a program can execute it ... but there's no > point to allowing access before the code is ready. The "+1" of a JIT compiler would be a virtualisation solution that has paged in the whole guest system already, but wants to analyze or redirect attempts to execute code. As I understand, older virtualisation solutions for x86 worked that way because x86 has some instructions that you want to virtualize but that do not trap on older processors (e.g. sgdt, str). You had to play some extra tricks because x86 originally didn't have per-page NX bits. Stefan
Back to comp.arch.embedded | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Memory Protections Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2020-07-13 13:30 -0700
Re: Memory Protections Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2020-07-13 23:45 -0700
Re: Memory Protections Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2020-07-14 10:40 +0100
Re: Memory Protections Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2020-07-14 11:44 -0700
Re: Memory Protections mac <acolvin@efunct.com> - 2020-07-19 15:03 +0000
Re: Memory Protections George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2020-07-14 06:21 -0400
Re: Memory Protections Stefan Reuther <stefan.news@arcor.de> - 2020-07-14 18:17 +0200
Re: Memory Protections Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2020-07-14 11:48 -0700
Re: Memory Protections George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2020-07-16 02:02 -0400
Re: Memory Protections Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2020-07-17 18:25 -0700
csiph-web