Re: [PATCH] no-execute -- please test

2006-08-20 Thread Albert Cahalan
On 8/14/06, Paul Mackerras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Albert Cahalan writes: > This kernel patch implements no-execute protection (like x86 "NX bit") > for the Mac G2, Mac G3, Mac G4, and other systems running 32-bit > PowerPC processors in the 6xx, 7xx, and 7xxx families. I'd be interested in

Re: [PATCH] no-execute -- please test

2006-08-18 Thread Albert Cahalan
On 8/14/06, Michel Dänzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The diff between the log files doesn't show any explanation as to why it works in one case but doesn't in the other, maybe the difference really lies on the client side? You're right. Somehow I hadn't spotted this in my syslog: fuckup @ 100

Re: [PATCH] no-execute -- please test

2006-08-16 Thread Benjamin Herrenschmidt
> We have a bit per page that says if the page is icache dirty or not. > On machines with no-execute support, we already avoid flushing the > page until some process first tries to execute from it. If we > extended that to this scheme, when we made a segment executable, we > would have to find an

Re: [PATCH] no-execute -- please test

2006-08-14 Thread Paul Mackerras
Albert Cahalan writes: > The first is to avoid taking the initial fault on the segment > which contains the instruction pointer. Good idea. > The second is to avoid cache or TLB invalidates or flushes > in certain circumstances. OpenBSD developers report that > this type of optimization is of gr

Re: [PATCH] no-execute -- please test

2006-08-14 Thread Michel Dänzer
On Mon, 2006-08-14 at 12:08 -0400, Albert Cahalan wrote: > The module failing is not actually the problem. > I get GLcore failing with a numeric error message > (grrr... like an original Mac or Amiga, or LILO) What more explanation than 'undefined symbol' do you need? You're not supposed to load G

Re: [PATCH] no-execute -- please test

2006-08-14 Thread Albert Cahalan
The module failing is not actually the problem. I get GLcore failing with a numeric error message (grrr... like an original Mac or Amiga, or LILO) even when things work OK. Messages from the failing situation: # cat Xorg.0.log.old | egrep 'EE|WW|!!|[abcdf-zA-Z]GL|gl|Gl|GL[a-zA-Z]|Chipset' Curren

Re: [PATCH] no-execute -- please test

2006-08-14 Thread Albert Cahalan
On 8/14/06, Michel Dänzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Sun, 2006-08-13 at 23:20 -0400, Albert Cahalan wrote: > > If you want heap protection, change VM_DATA_DEFAULT_FLAGS32 > in include/asm-powerpc/page.h to be like VM_STACK_DEFAULT_FLAGS. > I'd love to hear if anybody can get X to start with th

Re: [PATCH] no-execute -- please test

2006-08-14 Thread Michel Dänzer
On Sun, 2006-08-13 at 23:20 -0400, Albert Cahalan wrote: > > If you want heap protection, change VM_DATA_DEFAULT_FLAGS32 > in include/asm-powerpc/page.h to be like VM_STACK_DEFAULT_FLAGS. > I'd love to hear if anybody can get X to start with this change. > For me (Xorg w/ ATI) a module load fails.

Re: [PATCH] no-execute -- please test

2006-08-14 Thread Andreas Schwab
Paul Mackerras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Albert Cahalan writes: > >> If you want heap protection, change VM_DATA_DEFAULT_FLAGS32 >> in include/asm-powerpc/page.h to be like VM_STACK_DEFAULT_FLAGS. >> I'd love to hear if anybody can get X to start with this change. > > In general I would expect

Re: [PATCH] no-execute -- please test

2006-08-13 Thread Albert Cahalan
On 8/14/06, Paul Mackerras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Albert Cahalan writes: > This kernel patch implements no-execute protection (like x86 "NX bit") > for the Mac G2, Mac G3, Mac G4, and other systems running 32-bit > PowerPC processors in the 6xx, 7xx, and 7xxx families. I'd be interested in

Re: [PATCH] no-execute -- please test

2006-08-13 Thread Albert Cahalan
On 8/14/06, Paul Mackerras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Albert Cahalan writes: > If you want heap protection, change VM_DATA_DEFAULT_FLAGS32 > in include/asm-powerpc/page.h to be like VM_STACK_DEFAULT_FLAGS. > I'd love to hear if anybody can get X to start with this change. In general I would exp

Re: [PATCH] no-execute -- please test

2006-08-13 Thread Paul Mackerras
Albert Cahalan writes: > If you want heap protection, change VM_DATA_DEFAULT_FLAGS32 > in include/asm-powerpc/page.h to be like VM_STACK_DEFAULT_FLAGS. > I'd love to hear if anybody can get X to start with this change. In general I would expect dynamically-linked programs to fail unless you compi

Re: [PATCH] no-execute -- please test

2006-08-13 Thread Paul Mackerras
Albert Cahalan writes: > This kernel patch implements no-execute protection (like x86 "NX bit") > for the Mac G2, Mac G3, Mac G4, and other systems running 32-bit > PowerPC processors in the 6xx, 7xx, and 7xxx families. I'd be interested in benchmark comparisons with/without this patch, if anyone

[PATCH] no-execute -- please test

2006-08-13 Thread Albert Cahalan
This kernel patch implements no-execute protection (like x86 "NX bit") for the Mac G2, Mac G3, Mac G4, and other systems running 32-bit PowerPC processors in the 6xx, 7xx, and 7xxx families. As given, it usually protects from executing code on the stack. This has to do with the typical buffer ove