Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261153AbVA0UJE (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Jan 2005 15:09:04 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261160AbVA0UHf (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Jan 2005 15:07:35 -0500 Received: from canuck.infradead.org ([205.233.218.70]:15630 "EHLO canuck.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261153AbVA0UEd (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Jan 2005 15:04:33 -0500 Subject: Re: Patch 4/6 randomize the stack pointer From: Arjan van de Ven To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Kernel Mailing List , Christoph Hellwig In-Reply-To: References: <20050127101117.GA9760@infradead.org> <20050127101322.GE9760@infradead.org> <41F92721.1030903@comcast.net> <1106848051.5624.110.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <41F92D2B.4090302@comcast.net> <41F937C0.4050803@comcast.net> <1106855326.5624.123.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 21:04:21 +0100 Message-Id: <1106856262.5624.130.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: 4.1 (++++) X-Spam-Report: SpamAssassin version 2.63 on canuck.infradead.org summary: Content analysis details: (4.1 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.3 RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO Received: contains a numeric HELO 1.1 RCVD_IN_DSBL RBL: Received via a relay in list.dsbl.org [] 2.5 RCVD_IN_DYNABLOCK RBL: Sent directly from dynamic IP address [80.57.133.107 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net] 0.1 RCVD_IN_SORBS RBL: SORBS: sender is listed in SORBS [80.57.133.107 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net] 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 Content-Length: 857 Lines: 23 On Thu, 2005-01-27 at 11:59 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > Btw, since you're clearly at the keyboard now: I do agree with Christoph > that it would be a lot cleaner to just say that all architectures have to > have a arch_align_stack() define, instead of having a > __HAVE_ARCH_ALIGN_STACK define. > > After all, a trivial implementation would apparently just be > > #define arch_align_stack(x) (x) > > which is not too much of a bother to maintain for an architecture that > doesn't want to do this ;) yes I will make this change and post it a bit later (I want to at least test compile it for a few) - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/