Hi, On 2023-01-16 13:26, Guillem Jover wrote: > Hi! > > On Mon, 2023-01-16 at 12:47:23 +0100, Axel Beckert wrote: > > Aurelien Jarno wrote: > > > On 2022-10-26 22:09, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > > > > Note that the other official architecture still have a kernel > > > > compatibility set to 3.2, so that will make a difference between > > > > architectures. There are discussions to increase it upstream, but this > > > > won't happened for bookworm. > > > > > > > > On 2022-10-25 21:07, Simon McVittie wrote: > > > > > Or, if the mips porters consider this backwards compatibility to be > > > > > more important than the security hardening of a non-executable stack, > > > > > then Lintian should stop issuing warnings about the executable stack > > > > > on > > > > > mips*el to improve its signal/noise ratio. > > > > > > > > At this stage there is nothing that can be done on the glibc side, the > > > > decision has to be taken by the mips porters. > > > > > > We are getting very close to the toolchain freeze. Any decision about > > > that? > > > > JFYI: There is the request to disable this tag completely on MIPS > > architectures in https://bugs.debian.org/1025436 > > > > Now I wonder if this would actually help or worsen the situation for > > the glibc maintainers. > > > > Guillem: You wrote something about "bullseye" in #1025436. I think you > > meant "bookworm" instead. Am I right? > > Indeed, sorry, I was going by Aurelien's comment, but botched the > release name. :) But in any case, I'll defer to whatever take Aurelien > or other glibc maintainers have on this.
Given we got no decision from the MIPS porters before the toolchain freeze, we'll have to live with the executable stack on mips*el for bookworm. Therefore I believe it's a good idea to disable that tag on mips*el on the lintian side. Cheers Aurelien -- Aurelien Jarno GPG: 4096R/1DDD8C9B aurel...@aurel32.net http://www.aurel32.net