lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Oct]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [GIT PULL] s390 updates for 2.6.28-rc1

* Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com> wrote:

> The s390 vdso preparation patch "arch_setup_additional_pages argument"
> touches other architectures (x86, sh and powerpc):
>
> arch_setup_additional_pages currently gets two arguments, the binary
> format descripton and an indication if the process uses an executable
> stack or not. The second argument is not used by anybody, it could be
> removed without replacement.

hm, this is the first time i've seen this change, and it looks a bit
weird:

--- a/arch/x86/include/asm/elf.h
+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/elf.h
@@ -325,7 +325,7 @@ struct linux_binprm;

#define ARCH_HAS_SETUP_ADDITIONAL_PAGES 1
extern int arch_setup_additional_pages(struct linux_binprm *bprm,
- int executable_stack);
+ int uses_interp);

why didnt you just add a new uses_interp argument?

executable_stack is passed in to potentially enable architectures to be
aware of how conservative/legacy the address-space of the binary is -
whether to randomize the vdso, etc. exec-shield used to take advantage
of that.

But there seems to be no in-tree use of that (and if one arises it can
just add back that parameter), and i dont want to stand in the way of
your pull request either, so for the x86 bits:
Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>

Ingo


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-10-24 13:41    [W:0.105 / U:0.472 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site