From: Dan Cross <cross@math.psu.edu>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] Plan 9 buffer overflow exploit explained in Phrack Volume 0x0b, Issue 0x3e, Phile #0x09 of 0x0f
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2003 14:37:41 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200309201837.h8KIbfj25158@augusta.math.psu.edu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 20 Sep 2003 14:01:46 EDT." <34b8becbb30946e8fd4397ce2952e9e6@plan9.bell-labs.com>
> it's not just mpm. i can run almost every binary that has
> ever been compiled on plan 9 (for my current architecture).
> that's useful occasionally, and it's 100 lines of code to implement.
> if you don't want to carry it around, you could chop it out
> of your copy, but there are much bigger things you could drop
> instead.
Oh, I don't know; it depends on what the compatibility routines do. If
they just marshall arguments around (for instance, dealing with the
widening of types and the like), that's one thing. On the other hand,
if they represent entirely different implementations of common system
calls, such as in cases where semantics have changed and some amount of
compatibility with the old semantics was desired, that's another. If
we find the system call table filling up with the latter, I'd say it's
time to start thinking about recompiling things that are usefully
brought forward and chopping out the compatibility stuff. Yes, there
are bigger fish to fry, but if you can kill this one while it's still a
tadpole, it seems like a good idea.
That said, I'd note that some of the more interesting programs in,
e.g., 2nd edition are affected not by the lack or change in system
calls, but by fundamental changes in subsystems (ie, the introduction
of /dev/draw as a replacement for /dev/bitblt and friends, which
affects a number of things).
- Dan C.
(Ps- I really do think it would be nice to get mpm out and give people
the opportunity to either rewrite it or recompile it with g++.)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-09-20 18:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-09-20 6:49 Vester Thacker
2003-09-20 6:55 ` Russ Cox
2003-09-20 15:35 ` Markus Friedl
2003-09-22 9:01 ` I phantom
2003-09-20 17:14 ` Dan Cross
2003-09-20 17:22 ` Russ Cox
2003-09-20 17:49 ` Dan Cross
2003-09-20 17:53 ` William K. Josephson
2003-09-20 17:57 ` Dan Cross
2003-09-20 18:01 ` Russ Cox
2003-09-20 18:37 ` Dan Cross [this message]
2003-09-20 18:39 ` Russ Cox
2003-09-20 18:44 ` [9fans] mpm again Russ Cox
2003-09-20 19:07 ` [9fans] Plan 9 buffer overflow exploit explained in Phrack Volume 0x0b, Issue 0x3e, Phile #0x09 of 0x0f William K. Josephson
2003-09-20 20:12 ` David Presotto
2003-09-20 20:10 ` David Presotto
2003-09-20 8:07 Charles Forsyth
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200309201837.h8KIbfj25158@augusta.math.psu.edu \
--to=cross@math.psu.edu \
--cc=9fans@cse.psu.edu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).