From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964889AbWJWPCc (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Oct 2006 11:02:32 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S964913AbWJWPCc (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Oct 2006 11:02:32 -0400 Received: from 207.47.60.150.static.nextweb.net ([207.47.60.150]:62293 "EHLO webmail.xensource.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964889AbWJWPCb (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Oct 2006 11:02:31 -0400 Subject: Re: [patches] [PATCH] [18/19] x86_64: Overlapping program headers in physical addr space fix From: Ian Campbell To: vgoyal@in.ibm.com Cc: Jan Beulich , Andi Kleen , Magnus Damm , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, patches@x86-64.org, "Eric W. Biederman" In-Reply-To: <20061023144145.GB15532@in.ibm.com> References: <20061021651.356252000@suse.de> <20061021165138.B8B5E13C4D@wotan.suse.de> <453C8966.76E4.0078.0@novell.com> <20061023144145.GB15532@in.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 16:02:44 +0100 Message-Id: <1161615765.22514.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.6.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Oct 2006 15:02:31.0210 (UTC) FILETIME=[436868A0:01C6F6B4] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2006-10-23 at 10:41 -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote: > On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 08:20:38AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: > > >@@ -17,6 +17,7 @@ PHDRS { > > > text PT_LOAD FLAGS(5); /* R_E */ > > > data PT_LOAD FLAGS(7); /* RWE */ > > > user PT_LOAD FLAGS(7); /* RWE */ > > >+ data.init PT_LOAD FLAGS(7); /* RWE */ > > > note PT_NOTE FLAGS(4); /* R__ */ > > > } > > > SECTIONS > > > > Even though it's only cosmetic, I think it would have been > > more than appropriate to remove the ill 'E' permission on data > > with that change. > > May be. I just kept it because already data segment had 'E' permissions. > Ian, any reason why did you keep 'E' on data segment? If it is not > intentional, I will get rid of it. I wasn't 100% sure (only 99% :-)) it was unneeded so I kept it to minimise the changes in the final image since the original .data section had it. > >(Btw., why does 'note' need 'R'?) > > I went through the comments Ian had put in his patch. There also he > mentions that people objected to 'R' permissions for note segment as > it is read only by boot loader. He kept it because i386 had the similar > thing. > > Ian, again if there is no specific reason to keep 'R' for note, I will > get rid of it. There was a suggestion at one point that the note section was aliased by a PT_LOAD and so needed the R but it turned out that wasn't the case. You can drop it as far as I'm concerned. Ian.