Re: [PATCH v2] Allow exec on 32-bit from readable, non-exec pages, with a warning.

2007-07-18 Thread Linas Vepstas
On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 05:44:14PM -0500, Jon Loeliger wrote: > > > A: They haven't been posted yet. > > Q: How do we know Segher has new patches? > > rotfl -- rolling on the floor loeliger ! ___ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org

Re: [PATCH v2] Allow exec on 32-bit from readable, non-exec pages, with a warning.

2007-07-18 Thread Kumar Gala
On Jul 18, 2007, at 7:07 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > A: They haven't been posted yet. > > Q: How do we know Segher has new patches? He sent it to me to test, and I told him it worked... >>> >>> And I sent it to the list hours later, over a week ago. >> >> Can someone s

Re: [PATCH v2] Allow exec on 32-bit from readable, non-exec pages, with a warning.

2007-07-18 Thread Segher Boessenkool
A: They haven't been posted yet. Q: How do we know Segher has new patches? >>> >>> He sent it to me to test, and I told him it worked... >> >> And I sent it to the list hours later, over a week ago. > > Can someone send a ozlabs linuxppc list link or patchworks to the > "new" pat

Re: [PATCH v2] Allow exec on 32-bit from readable, non-exec pages, with a warning.

2007-07-17 Thread Kumar Gala
On Jul 17, 2007, at 10:30 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: >>> A: They haven't been posted yet. >>> >>> Q: How do we know Segher has new patches? >> >> He sent it to me to test, and I told him it worked... > > And I sent it to the list hours later, over a week ago. Can someone send a ozlabs linux

Re: [PATCH v2] Allow exec on 32-bit from readable, non-exec pages, with a warning.

2007-07-17 Thread Segher Boessenkool
>> A: They haven't been posted yet. >> >> Q: How do we know Segher has new patches? > > He sent it to me to test, and I told him it worked... And I sent it to the list hours later, over a week ago. Segher ___ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@o

Re: [PATCH v2] Allow exec on 32-bit from readable, non-exec pages, with a warning.

2007-07-17 Thread Scott Wood
Jon Loeliger wrote: > A: They haven't been posted yet. > > Q: How do we know Segher has new patches? He sent it to me to test, and I told him it worked... -Scott ___ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinf

Re: [PATCH v2] Allow exec on 32-bit from readable, non-exec pages, with a warning.

2007-07-17 Thread Jon Loeliger
A: They haven't been posted yet. Q: How do we know Segher has new patches? So, like, the other day Scott Wood mumbled: > Jon Loeliger wrote: > > But luckily, this gave me the opportunity to then realize that > > we should give a great big... > > > > Amen-brother-by: Jon Loeliger <[EMAIL PR

Re: [PATCH v2] Allow exec on 32-bit from readable, non-exec pages, with a warning.

2007-07-17 Thread Scott Wood
Jon Loeliger wrote: > But luckily, this gave me the opportunity to then realize that > we should give a great big... > > Amen-brother-by: Jon Loeliger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > to this patch from Scott. > > So, an official plea to Paul to apply this to his tree. Segher has a newer patch that supe

Re: [PATCH v2] Allow exec on 32-bit from readable, non-exec pages, with a warning.

2007-07-17 Thread Jon Loeliger
On Mon, 2007-07-09 at 16:48, Scott Wood wrote: > In older versions of glibc (through 2.3), the dynamic linker executes a > small amount of code from the data segment, which is not marked as > executable. A recent change (commit 9ba4ace39fdfe22268daca9f28c5df384ae462cf) > stops this from working; t

Re: [PATCH v2] Allow exec on 32-bit from readable, non-exec pages, with a warning.

2007-07-16 Thread Segher Boessenkool
Actually I see no good reason to enforce no-exec at all if we can't do it consistently. And if we're not going to enforce it then there is no point whinging about it. >>> >>> >>> I have a new patch with just this behaviour, Scott is >>> testing it on old glibc (I think

Re: [PATCH v2] Allow exec on 32-bit from readable, non-exec pages, with a warning.

2007-07-12 Thread Kumar Gala
On Jul 11, 2007, at 10:32 AM, Scott Wood wrote: > Segher Boessenkool wrote: >>> Actually I see no good reason to enforce no-exec at all if we >>> can't do >>> it consistently. And if we're not going to enforce it then there is >>> no point whinging about it. >> >> >> I have a new patch with ju

Re: [PATCH v2] Allow exec on 32-bit from readable, non-exec pages, with a warning.

2007-07-11 Thread Scott Wood
Segher Boessenkool wrote: >> Actually I see no good reason to enforce no-exec at all if we can't do >> it consistently. And if we're not going to enforce it then there is >> no point whinging about it. > > > I have a new patch with just this behaviour, Scott is > testing it on old glibc (I think

Re: [PATCH v2] Allow exec on 32-bit from readable, non-exec pages, with a warning.

2007-07-10 Thread Segher Boessenkool
>> In older versions of glibc (through 2.3), the dynamic linker >> executes a >> small amount of code from the data segment, which is not marked as >> executable. A recent change (commit >> 9ba4ace39fdfe22268daca9f28c5df384ae462cf) >> stops this from working; there should be a deprecation peri

Re: [PATCH v2] Allow exec on 32-bit from readable, non-exec pages, with a warning.

2007-07-09 Thread Paul Mackerras
Scott Wood writes: > In older versions of glibc (through 2.3), the dynamic linker executes a > small amount of code from the data segment, which is not marked as > executable. A recent change (commit 9ba4ace39fdfe22268daca9f28c5df384ae462cf) > stops this from working; there should be a deprecatio