This is the mail archive of the cygwin-developers mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
Hi Ryan,ASLR works pretty well for dlls having static use patterns (including apps which always open the same dlls), from what I can tell. The reason I hadn't done it for that test app is because dlls created and loaded dynamically by apps like gcc bootstrap wouldn't have it set either, and I wanted a consistent way to reproduce the erratic fork problems that they see as a result of the odd base address collision. Similarly, I purposefully avoided rebasing or ASLR-ing my cygwin install while testing the fork patches.
On Jun 18 16:32, Ryan Johnson wrote:http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2011-06/msg00047.html- deliberately dlopen-ing two dlls with the same base address and trying to fork
Did you try the ASLR flag for your test DLLs? Does it help, perhaps? If the ASLR flag works as I understand it, the DLLs should be moved into a less dangerous memory area and be then fixed there.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |