[PATCH] powerpc: ppc32 needs elf_read_implies_exec()
Kumar Gala
galak at kernel.crashing.org
Sat Apr 18 04:16:19 EST 2009
On Apr 17, 2009, at 1:03 PM, Kumar Gala wrote:
> On ppc64 we implemented elf_read_implies_exec() for 32-bit binaries
> because old toolchains had bugs with regards to marking PHDRs as
> executable that needed to be. For some reason we didn't do this on
> ppc32 builds. This hadn't been an issue until recent changes to I$/D$
> handling that impacted the per-page exec handling on embedded PPC.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kumar Gala <galak at kernel.crashing.org>
> ---
> arch/powerpc/include/asm/elf.h | 1 +
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/elf.h b/arch/powerpc/include/
> asm/elf.h
> index 1a856b1..b6ada56 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/elf.h
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/elf.h
> @@ -259,6 +259,7 @@ do { \
> (exec_stk != EXSTACK_DISABLE_X) : 0)
> #else
> # define SET_PERSONALITY(ex) set_personality(PER_LINUX)
> +# define elf_read_implies_exec(ex, exec_stk) (exec_stk !=
> EXSTACK_DISABLE_X)
> #endif /* __powerpc64__ */
>
> extern int dcache_bsize;
> --
> 1.6.0.6
I just want to make sure I understand the implications of this
change. It seems to me that we will not be able to support stack exec
perms on any ppc32 part that has per-page exec support. Is that correct?
I'm wondering if we are too generous in the check, exec_stk can be:
EXSTACK_DEFAULT
EXSTACK_DISABLE_X
EXSTACK_ENABLE_X
It seems like EXSTACK_DISABLE_X/EXSTACK_ENABLE_X are only set if
p_type == PT_GNU_STACK. Do we think toolchains existed that set
p_type to PT_GNU_STACK that don't set PF_X properly?
My thinking is elf_read_implies_exec() should be changed to:
# define elf_read_implies_exec(ex, exec_stk) (exec_stk ==
EXSTACK_DEFAULT)
- k
More information about the Linuxppc-dev
mailing list