Unreviewed patches

[Jakub Jelinek]

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