Re: OS stopping stack buffer overflow exploits

Date: Sun Jun 04 2000 - 09:05:02 EST

Ingo Oeser <> writes:

> On Sun, Jun 04, 2000 at 05:07:35AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > > Could you please show a daily example of any *need* for
> > > trampolines? I mean code, which could only be implemented
> > > (efficiently) via trampolines.
> > >
> > > I never saw one generated by GCC and never wrote an explicit one
> > > by myself. So for what important piece of code we do need it and
> > > can't code it without trampolines?
> >
> > A commercial Java compiler (the fastest one on the market AFAIK) uses
> > then, and IIRC Gnu Ada uses some features which are unfriendly to the
> > OS attempting to stop stack overflow exploits across the board.
> No code shown either. And no reason deployed, why we couldn't
> code this without trampolines in the old threads.

AFAIK, gcc use trampolines for nested function.

> > In any case, this thread has been beaten to death. Maybe we should all
> > just re-read the old threads? :)
> I've followed these threads and got no answer. I only saw
> comments like "it is _really_ needed, because XXX uses it." But
> never saw _any_ code, which will perform much worse without them.

> I only know, that there exists code, which uses it, but never
> been able to understand the reasoning behind doing it that way.

Ask to the Gnu ADA guys.

		-- Yoann
 It is well known that M$ product don't make a free() after a malloc(),
the unix community wish them good luck for their future developement.

- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jun 07 2000 - 21:00:18 EST