* On 2016-07-05 at 17:53 BST, Thomas Klausner wrote: > On Tue, Jul 05, 2016 at 04:46:15PM +0000, David Holland wrote: > > I don't remember if I mentioned this somewhere before or only thought > > it, but: > > > > On Tue, Jul 05, 2016 at 06:39:12PM +0200, Leonardo Taccari wrote: > > > Add NOT_PAX_ASLR_SAFE and NOT_PAX_MPROTECT_SAFE to BUILD_DEFS so the > > > paxctl-fied binaries can be inspected via `pkg_info -Q' > > > > while PAX_MPROTECT is a thing of a particular kind, ASLR is a general > > feature and it would be better to just have NOT_ASLR_SAFE. That way we > > don't end up with NOT_PUX_ASLR_SAFE and NOT_PEX_ASLR_SAFE and so on as > > we discover other OSes' differing implementations but can handle them > > under the hood. > > > > then there's agc's objection to negative boolean variables, which I > > tend to agree with; instead of > > > > NOT_PAX_MPROTECT_SAFE=yes > > > > it would be nicer to have in packages > > > > PAX_MPROTECT_SAFE=no > > > > and if we're going to change this it should be now and shouldn't wait :-/ > > But it's not a yes/no variable, it's a list of files.
Then name them PAX_MPROTECT_SKIP and PAX_ASLR_SKIP to follow CHECK_SHLIBS_SKIP, CHECK_INTERPRETER_SKIP, etc? -- Jonathan Perkin - Joyent, Inc. - www.joyent.com
