Re: Unreviewed patches

[Andrew Cagney <ac131313 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.

Um, how is that significantly different to PT_GNU_STACK?  The kernel/ld 
needs to check that section's contents for a "x".

Andrew


> 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