This is the mail archive of the libc-hacker@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the glibc project.

Note that libc-hacker is a closed list. You may look at the archives of this list, but subscription and posting are not open.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [PATCH] Set __libc_stack_end earlier on all arches,...

From: Ulrich Drepper <drepper at redhat dot com>
To: sjmunroe at vnet dot ibm dot com
Cc: libc-hacker <libc-hacker at sources dot redhat dot com>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 13:40:19 -0700
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Set __libc_stack_end earlier on all arches,...
Organization: Red Hat, Inc.
References: <3F71E53D.F128E61D@us.ibm.com>

Steven Munroe wrote:

> I would like an explanation of why we are doing this. Generally arbitrarily
> marking the stack executable is a bad idea.

Nobody disagrees.  The execstack functionality is exactly there to avoid
having an executable stack unless really needed.  To to this binaries
need to be marked appropriately and the defaults (what happens if the
status isn't known for a file) have to be selected correctly for each
platform.  See Jakub patches to ld, see the extra section gcc creates to
mark stack usage (.note.GNU-stack).

-- 
--------------.                        ,-.            444 Castro Street
Ulrich Drepper \    ,-----------------'   \ Mountain View, CA 94041 USA
Red Hat         `--' drepper at redhat.com `---------------------------

References:
- Re:[PATCH] Set __libc_stack_end earlier on all arches,...
  - From: Steven Munroe

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]