From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <hollis@penguinppc.org>
Received: from fall-curlleaf.atl.sa.earthlink.net
	(fall-curlleaf.atl.sa.earthlink.net [207.69.195.105])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(Client did not present a certificate)
	by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7BDB67C51
	for <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>; Mon, 14 Aug 2006 03:03:54 +1000 (EST)
Subject: Re: PowerPC paxtest results w/ gcc-4.1
From: Hollis Blanchard <hollis@penguinppc.org>
To: Albert Cahalan <acahalan@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <787b0d920608122111p79f29d74r600382658599cd63@mail.gmail.com>
References: <787b0d920608112250q551c98f5j328183c31eebaf77@mail.gmail.com>
	<17629.48408.564322.747132@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com>
	<787b0d920608120736n1ba0bc03jccf2964bf7ebb1d5@mail.gmail.com>
	<17630.27174.711916.643790@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com>
	<787b0d920608121948rad24dc7le834f1b499543ace@mail.gmail.com>
	<17630.39716.551115.850057@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com>
	<787b0d920608122111p79f29d74r600382658599cd63@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2006 11:45:01 -0500
Message-Id: <1155487501.18244.0.camel@diesel>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, debian-powerpc <debian-powerpc@lists.debian.org>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List <linuxppc-dev.ozlabs.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
	<mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@ozlabs.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev>
List-Post: <mailto:linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@ozlabs.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
	<mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@ozlabs.org?subject=subscribe>

On Sun, 2006-08-13 at 00:11 -0400, Albert Cahalan wrote:
> 
> On 8/12/06, Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org> wrote:
> > Albert Cahalan writes:
> >
> > > VM_STACK_DEFAULT_FLAGS32 is wrong. A fail-safe
> > > default is important for security. If gcc on PowerPC ever
> > > does generate code which puts trampolines on the stack,
> > > then that can be fixed by converting to legal C code or
> > > by adding the fragile marking to the defective executables.
> > > Did gcc ever generate such code on PowerPC? If not,
> > > then there is no reason to ever allow an executable stack.
> >
> > I believe it did for nested procedures in C.
> 
> I just disassembled libgcc. You're right. Eeeeeew.
> I filed a bug describing two better methods for this.

URL?

-Hollis