From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261271AbVBFSKu (ORCPT ); Sun, 6 Feb 2005 13:10:50 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261267AbVBFSIb (ORCPT ); Sun, 6 Feb 2005 13:08:31 -0500 Received: from canuck.infradead.org ([205.233.218.70]:50954 "EHLO canuck.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261266AbVBFSIS (ORCPT ); Sun, 6 Feb 2005 13:08:18 -0500 Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL/PATCH] Remove PT_GNU_STACK support before 2.6.11 From: Arjan van de Ven To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Andi Kleen , Ingo Molnar , Christoph Hellwig , akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, drepper@redhat.com In-Reply-To: References: <20050206120244.GA28061@elte.hu> <20050206124523.GA762@elte.hu> <20050206125002.GF30109@wotan.suse.de> <1107694800.22680.90.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <20050206130152.GH30109@wotan.suse.de> <20050206130650.GA32015@infradead.org> <20050206131130.GJ30109@wotan.suse.de> <20050206133239.GA4483@elte.hu> <20050206134640.GB30476@wotan.suse.de> <20050206140802.GA6323@elte.hu> <20050206142936.GC30476@wotan.suse.de> <1107710023.22680.138.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <1107711569.22680.146.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 19:08:08 +0100 Message-Id: <1107713288.22680.153.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.0.2 (2.0.2-3) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) X-Spam-Report: SpamAssassin version 2.63 on canuck.infradead.org summary: Content analysis details: (0.3 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.3 RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO Received: contains a numeric HELO X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by canuck.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 2005-02-06 at 10:04 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > Ok so what to do for 2.6.11... the setarch workaround is there; that > > works. My patch patches the worst issues and is quite minimal. What you > > propose will be more invasive and more suitable for 2.6.11-bk1... > > I can do such a patch no problem (although the next two days I won't > > have time). > > Hmm.. I can take your initial patch now. Can somebody explain why this > hassn't come up before, though? somehow things got "cleaned up" around 2.6.10-ish to change the default... it's quite rare so few people noticed. It seems Andi got a few reports in the last week or so and started investigating.