Re: PowerPC paxtest results w/ gcc-4.1

On Sun, 2006-08-13 at 00:11 -0400, Albert Cahalan wrote:

On 8/12/06, Paul Mackerras [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Albert Cahalan writes:

quoted

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.

URL?

-Hollis