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.