This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: Unreviewed patches
- From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- To: "H. J. Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>
- Cc: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>, Ulrich Drepper <drepper at redhat dot com>, binutils at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 16:45:21 +0200
- Subject: Re: Unreviewed patches
- References: <20030602124040.A13397@devserv.devel.redhat.com> <20030603005805.GF25928@redhat.com> <20030602211244.A9761@lucon.org>
- Reply-to: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
On Mon, Jun 02, 2003 at 09:12:44PM -0700, H. J. Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 02, 2003 at 05:58:05PM -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 02, 2003 at 12:40:40PM -0400, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/2003-05/msg00741.html
> >
> > Since I think I suggested PT_GNU_STACK in the first place,
> > I'm a bit biased, but I like this solution. It's the least
> > amount of work for the kernel in execing a new application
> > short of having a dedicated ET_FLAGS bit (which we don't).
> >
> > The patch is ok.
> >
>
> I like the proposal. But I don't like the implementation.
> I'd like to see a generic note section for properties of
> a relocatable file. I will make a detailed suggestion
> tomorrow.
There are 2 separate things you argued about.
One is you wanted PT_GNU_PROPERTY segment instead of PT_GNU_STACK.
This is IMHO bad idea, since kernel/ld.so would need to dereference that
segment and parse its content to find out whether to use non-exec stack or
not.
The other are the ET_REL-only sections used to set the default value.
Here, I don't understand if you want to keep the merged section in the
binary/libraries or not and why is a generic section with lots of flags
better than specialized section (I think ld has about the same amount
of work with both variants).
Jakub