PowerPC paxtest results w/ gcc-4.1
acahalan at gmail.com
Mon Aug 14 04:59:01 EST 2006
On 8/13/06, Hollis Blanchard <hollis at penguinppc.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-08-13 at 00:11 -0400, Albert Cahalan wrote:
> > On 8/12/06, Paul Mackerras <paulus at samba.org> wrote:
> > > Albert Cahalan writes:
> > >
> > > > VM_STACK_DEFAULT_FLAGS32 is wrong. A fail-safe
> > > > default is important for security. If gcc on PowerPC ever
> > > > does generate code which puts trampolines on the stack,
> > > > then that can be fixed by converting to legal C code or
> > > > by adding the fragile marking to the defective executables.
> > > > Did gcc ever generate such code on PowerPC? If not,
> > > > then there is no reason to ever allow an executable stack.
> > >
> > > I believe it did for nested procedures in C.
> > I just disassembled libgcc. You're right. Eeeeeew.
> > I filed a bug describing two better methods for this.
More information about the Linuxppc-dev