Re: [patch] i386, vdso=[0|1] boot option and /proc/sys/vm/vdso_enabled

Rusty Russell
2006-05-21T11:06:08Z

On Sun, 2006-05-21 at 12:41 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au> wrote:
>
> > But it turns out that this is a known problem with FC1's glibc and the
> > exec-shield patches (google for FC1 glibc vdso). [..]
>
> no, i think that conclusion is wrong. The FC1 glibc and vdso problems
> *when mixing a FC2 kernel with a FC1 glibc* were due to exec-shield
> enforcing non-exec for the vdso.

Interesting. I'll see if I can find a spare machine to try installing
FC1 on tomorrow then, see if I can figure this one out. I can't think
how this could happen, though.

> > [...] When Ingo and Arjan convinced me to push their code from
> > exec-shield, they conveniently didn't mention this.
>
> this bug has nothing to do with nonexec restrictions. [ Also, this all
> was _years_ and hundreds of bugs ago, when upstream's position was still
> a cocky "who the hell needs protection against overflows" and "go away
> with this non-exec crap" so we were pretty much alone trying to
> introduce those features. So any suggestion of intention on our part
> would be quite unfair. ]

Sorry if I was narky. I tried to do the right thing and get more of
execshield in, rather than just what I needed, but it seems I screwed up
somewhere. With the Wesnoth 1.2 feature freeze next week, my spare time
to chase bugs I don't need to is limited 8(

Cheers,
Rusty.
--
ccontrol: http://ccontrol.ozlabs.org