Re: [patches] [PATCH] [18/19] x86_64: Overlapping program headers in physical addr space fix

[Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@XenSource.com>]

On Mon, 2006-10-23 at 10:41 -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 08:20:38AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > >@@ -17,6 +17,7 @@ PHDRS {
> > > 	text PT_LOAD FLAGS(5);	/* R_E */
> > > 	data PT_LOAD FLAGS(7);	/* RWE */
> > > 	user PT_LOAD FLAGS(7);	/* RWE */
> > >+	data.init PT_LOAD FLAGS(7);	/* RWE */
> > > 	note PT_NOTE FLAGS(4);	/* R__ */
> > > }
> > > SECTIONS
> > 
> > Even though it's only cosmetic, I think it would have been
> > more than appropriate to remove the ill 'E' permission on data
> > with that change.
> 
> May be. I just kept it because already data segment had 'E' permissions.
> Ian, any reason why did you keep 'E' on data segment? If it is not
> intentional, I will get rid of it.

I wasn't 100% sure (only 99% :-)) it was unneeded so I kept it to
minimise the changes in the final image since the original .data section
had it.

> >(Btw., why does 'note' need 'R'?)
> 
> I went through the comments Ian had put in his patch. There also he 
> mentions that people objected to 'R' permissions for note segment as
> it is read only by boot loader. He kept it because i386 had the similar
> thing. 
> 
> Ian, again if there is no specific reason to keep 'R' for note, I will
> get rid of it.

There was a suggestion at one point that the note section was aliased by
a PT_LOAD and so needed the R but it turned out that wasn't the case.

You can drop it as far as I'm concerned.

Ian.