>>>>> On Tue, 31 Aug 1999, "CC" = Crispin Cowan wrote:
+> So, why would one use the approach of saving the return address on
+> another stack, instead of patching the stack itself, like StackGuard?
+> The only reason I can imagine, is that one does not want to change the
+> stack layout. The benefit of not changing the stack layout, is that
+> you can do the change outside of the compiler.
CC> Another major advantage is that gdb continues to work. The
CC> StackGuard method fails for all programs that introspect the stack,
CC> gdb being the major example.
And presumably it would mean you could compile kernels with it, which also
fails with StackGuard (for Linux, at least).
Cheers,
Chris.
------------------------------------------------------------------- ><> ---
Hardware Compilation Group, Oxford University Computing Laboratory,
Wolfson Building, Parks Road, Oxford, OX1 3QD, U.K.
tel: +44 (1865) (2)73865 e-mail: Chris.Keaneat_private
http://www.comlab.ox.ac.uk/oucl/users/chris.keane/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Apr 13 2001 - 15:01:28 PDT