From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-68458-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 27223 invoked by alias); 16 Nov 2009 15:59:13 -0000
Received: (qmail 27209 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Nov 2009 15:59:12 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 	tests=AWL,BAYES_00
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from sibelius.xs4all.nl (HELO glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl) (83.163.83.176)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 16 Nov 2009 15:58:08 +0000
Received: from glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (kettenis@localhost [127.0.0.1]) 	by glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id nAGFuQgE004298; 	Mon, 16 Nov 2009 16:56:26 +0100 (CET)
Received: (from kettenis@localhost) 	by glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id nAGFuO6g029976; 	Mon, 16 Nov 2009 16:56:24 +0100 (CET)
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 15:59:00 -0000
Message-Id: <200911161556.nAGFuO6g029976@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl>
From: Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>
To: fche@redhat.com
CC: joseph@codesourcery.com, drow@false.org, gdb-patches@sourceware.org,         pedro@codesourcery.com, uweigand@de.ibm.com
In-reply-to: <y0mbpj2wlhu.fsf@fche.csb>
Subject: Re: RFC: Longjmp vs LD_POINTER_GUARD revisited
References: <20091115173429.GB23483@caradoc.them.org> 	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0911151833510.28152@digraph.polyomino.org.uk> 	<200911152148.nAFLmYPK018249@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <y0mbpj2wlhu.fsf@fche.csb>
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2009-11/txt/msg00365.txt.bz2

> From: fche@redhat.com (Frank Ch. Eigler)
> Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 10:13:49 -0500
> 
> Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl> writes:
> 
> >> [...]
> > Isn't it a bit ridiculous that glibc, which is a GNU project, makes
> > the life of GDB, another GNU project, so difficult?
> 
> Well, it's nothing personal.  If glibc made it trivial decrypt this
> stuff on demand, it'd be just as easy for an attacker.  Maybe this is
> a case for something akin to libthread_db.

That's not quite the point I wanted to make.  I merely wanted to point
out that glibc implemented this security measure (and apparently keeps
changing it) without considering the debugability of processes.