On Sun, 2005-02-06 at 09:31 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Sun, 6 Feb 2005, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > > > Note that these techniques all exist today. The only issue is that the > > current code doesn't do the RWE->READIMPLIESEXEC binding, which my patch > > fixed. > > My main objection to your patch is the naming. If 'executable_stack' > affects the heap, then why is it called "executable_STACK"?
fair point. > > Wouldn't it be much nicer to > > - get rid of "EXSTACK_DEFAULT" as a special case, and instead just have > the architecture _initialize_ the damn variable to what it wants? In > other words, make it a nice understandable binary value (or maybe a > bitmask, if you want to have separate flags for stack/heap/mmap), > rather than a ternary value where one of the values means something > arch-dependent. > > - just rename the dang thing to "read_implies_exec" and be done with it? > > Hmm? Wouldn't that make a lot more sense? it would. It'll be a bit bigger than I'd be comfortable with this late in the 2.6.11 cycle though. > > And if you want to split things up, there's at least three flags there: > "stack" vs "file mapping" vs "anonymous mapping". For example, it might lets add "brk" as 4th I guess. Ok so what to do for 2.6.11... the setarch workaround is there; that works. My patch patches the worst issues and is quite minimal. What you propose will be more invasive and more suitable for 2.6.11-bk1... I can do such a patch no problem (although the next two days I won't have time). - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
