From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 12:42:46 +1000 From: David Gibson To: Segher Boessenkool Subject: Re: [PATCH] Allow exec on 32-bit from readable, non-exec pages, with a warning. Message-ID: <20070717024246.GA6482@localhost.localdomain> References: <20070709195743.GA26089@ld0162-tx32.am.freescale.net> <200707092225.25287.arnd@arndb.de> <4692A5B8.9010702@freescale.com> <8CA741AA-D200-474F-943D-ECE4B3ACD38B@kernel.crashing.org> <18068.5706.700933.551828@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> <89E626D4-D48D-4062-A996-E2DFFE8248E3@kernel.crashing.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <89E626D4-D48D-4062-A996-E2DFFE8248E3@kernel.crashing.org> Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Paul Mackerras , Arnd Bergmann List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, Jul 11, 2007 at 02:03:24AM +0200, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > >> Yeah. Giving the warning is a good thing though. > > > > No, it isn't; it's just noise, if we're not ever going to do anything > > to prevent the behaviour - and we can't. > > The same userland code will not run correctly on PPC64 or BookE > systems. Is that not a reason to warn? Way back when, I distinctly recall aborting my plans to implement per-page exec on 40x, precisely because of executables like this. -- David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_ | _way_ _around_! http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson