[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140427103915.GC1111@krava.brq.redhat.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2014 12:39:15 +0200
From: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
To: Mathias Krause <minipli@...glemail.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf x86: Fix perf to use non-executable stack, again
On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 12:03:50PM +0200, Mathias Krause wrote:
SNIP
> >> 1.7.10.4
> >>
> >
> > hum, how about fixing this once and for all.. ;-)
> > please check attached patch, thanks
>
> Yeah, I thought about this option too but declined it for two reasons:
> 1/ The kernel sources should provide good quality examples, even for
> usage outside of the kernel. Imagine somebody taking the memcpy
> implementation for his own project but not copying the LDFLAGS. That
> would make his code have an executable stack while with the .GNU-stack
> marker in the assembler file it won't.
that 'somebody' should check/know better ;-) but ok, fair enough
> 2/ What if somebody tries to add/link code to perf that makes use of
> nested functions? That'll make perf fail as the trampoline code
> generated by gcc won't be executable due to the enforced
> non-executable stack by -Wl,-z,noexecstack.
I guess in that case he would change the Makefile as well?
anyway I have no objection for leaving that code in assembly
objects, but I suggest we use the global option as well to
prevent any future surprise..
or insert test case for perf's executable stack to 'perf test'
thanks,
jirka
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists