From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932530AbWF0TDP (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Jun 2006 15:03:15 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932533AbWF0TDP (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Jun 2006 15:03:15 -0400 Received: from mx1.pretago.de ([89.110.132.150]:9941 "EHLO mx1.pretago.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932530AbWF0TDO (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Jun 2006 15:03:14 -0400 From: Markus Schoder To: Andi Kleen Subject: Re: ia32 binfmt problem with x86-64 Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 21:03:10 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.1 Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20060626112210.307DB1A04006@prtg1.pretago.de> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200606272103.10378.lists@gammarayburst.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tuesday 27 June 2006 10:43, Andi Kleen wrote: > lists@gammarayburst.de writes: > > > > This all makes sense. But 64 bit and 32 bit apps should get the same > > treatment right? > > No - i386 behaves different here than x86-64. > > x86-64 always had NX/PROT_EXEC (although not all CPUs have always enforced it) > while i386 has lots of legacy binaries that don't know about it. But then 32 bit apps should be handled in a less restrictive fashion than 64 bit apps, no? And also probably only for binaries that do not have the exec_stack flag at all. What I fail to understand then is why a 64 bit application with the exec_stack flag set gets read_implies_exec and a 32 bit application also with the exec_stack flag set does not (this is also the only case where the behavior differs). -- Markus