From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>
Cc: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
lethal@linux-sh.org, paulus@samba.org, benh@kernel.crashing.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] s390 updates for 2.6.28-rc1
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 12:51:46 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20081027115146.GE5631@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1225045593.14057.11.camel@localhost>
* Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-10-24 at 13:37 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> > > The s390 vdso preparation patch "arch_setup_additional_pages argument"
> > > touches other architectures (x86, sh and powerpc):
> > >
> > > arch_setup_additional_pages currently gets two arguments, the binary
> > > format descripton and an indication if the process uses an executable
> > > stack or not. The second argument is not used by anybody, it could be
> > > removed without replacement.
> >
> > hm, this is the first time i've seen this change,
>
> The code is relatively new and I planned it for the merge window for
> 2.6.29. I still have to nag our performance team to do some tests
> with it.
okay, then i'm confused, the subject line says v2.6.28:
[GIT PULL] s390 updates for 2.6.28-rc1
(i have still no objections to those small x86 bits.)
> > #define ARCH_HAS_SETUP_ADDITIONAL_PAGES 1
> > extern int arch_setup_additional_pages(struct linux_binprm *bprm,
> > - int executable_stack);
> > + int uses_interp);
> >
> > why didnt you just add a new uses_interp argument?
>
> I could have but I noticed at the same time that executable_stack is
> unused. If somebody finds a need for the executable_stack argument
> it can easily re-added but I can't think of a use for it. Ergo I
> removed it.
>
> > executable_stack is passed in to potentially enable architectures
> > to be aware of how conservative/legacy the address-space of the
> > binary is - whether to randomize the vdso, etc. exec-shield used
> > to take advantage of that.
>
> What has address space layout / randomization to do with
> executable_stack? You lost me there.
it's just a historic/quirky connection (non-executable stack was the
first and biggest step towards a more flexible address space layout) -
you were correct to have it cleaned up.
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-10-27 11:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-10-24 10:50 [GIT PULL] s390 updates for 2.6.28-rc1 Heiko Carstens
2008-10-24 11:37 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-10-26 18:26 ` Martin Schwidefsky
2008-10-27 11:51 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2008-10-27 12:32 ` Martin Schwidefsky
2008-10-27 18:11 ` Ingo Molnar
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20081027115146.GE5631@elte.hu \
--to=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com \
--cc=lethal@linux-sh.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
--cc=roland@redhat.com \
--cc=schwidefsky@de.ibm.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox