PowerPC paxtest results w/ gcc-4.1
paulus at samba.org
Wed Aug 16 21:07:44 EST 2006
Gabriel Paubert writes:
> I agree, but I don't know why you believe it would cause
> a machine check (0x200): from my docs, it is an ISI (0x400).
I don't believe it would cause a machine check either, but that is
what Matt Sealey was saying. I don't know where he got that idea.
> BTW, there is one way to make pages non executable: mark
> them as guarded, but it will have a significant cost in
> terms of performance.
Indeed. I guess we could do that as a config option for machines that
really want maximum security at the expense of performance, but I
don't think all users would want that.
More information about the Linuxppc-dev