Linked by Dareka on Fri 19th Apr 2013 10:40 UTC
BeOS & Derivatives "Starting with hrev45522, address space layout randomization (ASLR) and data execution prevention (DEP) are available in Haiku. These two features, which have actually become a standard in any modern OS, make it much harder to exploit any vulnerability that may be present in an application running on Haiku, thus generally improving system security."
Permalink for comment 559444
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Funny
by WereCatf on Mon 22nd Apr 2013 10:35 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Funny"
Member since:

It doesn't need to be that way. I was talking to neolander a while back and a global mapping has some advantages when pages are shared because the pointers contained within those pages are valid in any process.

If all processes shared a global mapping it would immediately counter the whole point of ASLR: if your process couldn't access or allocate a certain memory location you'd immediately know that it's in use. Virtual address mappings are a security feature designed exactly for this as the application can request ANY address whatsoever and it wouldn't know if it is physically at that location or not or if that physical location is used by something else and the application was instead given a virtual mapping.

There are security implications depending on how it's used, but it's no worse than sharing pages at relocatable addresses since untrusted offsets would still need to be bounds checked
anyways. Trusted processes would have a much easier time sharing actual objects between them (and not just serializing objects to/from the shared page).

You do realize that you can still share the same, physical location between multiple applications even with private, virtual address mappings? Most OSes do provide facilities for this -- the OS only needs to map the same, physical address to some random private address on the processes' sides and then let the processes know which address to use.

It sounded to me sort of implied that his version of malloc did that. Maybe I read it too optimistically, but I don't think the post was worthy of the downvotes.

I wasn't the one downvoting him, so that's irrelevant wrt. my comment. But I didn't interpret his comment as you did, I interpreted it that he simply randomizes the base location he mallocs for the process and places it all there.

Reply Parent Score: 2