Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755910AbYJZRfb (ORCPT ); Sun, 26 Oct 2008 13:35:31 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753296AbYJZRfU (ORCPT ); Sun, 26 Oct 2008 13:35:20 -0400 Received: from mtagate3.de.ibm.com ([195.212.29.152]:45764 "EHLO mtagate3.de.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753262AbYJZRfS (ORCPT ); Sun, 26 Oct 2008 13:35:18 -0400 Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] s390 updates for 2.6.28-rc1 From: Martin Schwidefsky Reply-To: schwidefsky@de.ibm.com To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Heiko Carstens , Linus Torvalds , lethal@linux-sh.org, paulus@samba.org, benh@kernel.crashing.org, Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, Roland McGrath In-Reply-To: <20081024113724.GA21375@elte.hu> References: <20081024105049.GC4620@osiris.boeblingen.de.ibm.com> <20081024113724.GA21375@elte.hu> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: IBM Corporation Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2008 19:26:33 +0100 Message-Id: <1225045593.14057.11.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.3.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2273 Lines: 63 On Fri, 2008-10-24 at 13:37 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Heiko Carstens wrote: > > > The s390 vdso preparation patch "arch_setup_additional_pages argument" > > touches other architectures (x86, sh and powerpc): > > > > arch_setup_additional_pages currently gets two arguments, the binary > > format descripton and an indication if the process uses an executable > > stack or not. The second argument is not used by anybody, it could be > > removed without replacement. > > hm, this is the first time i've seen this change, The code is relatively new and I planned it for the merge window for 2.6.29. I still have to nag our performance team to do some tests with it. > and it looks a bit weird: > > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/elf.h > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/elf.h > @@ -325,7 +325,7 @@ struct linux_binprm; > > #define ARCH_HAS_SETUP_ADDITIONAL_PAGES 1 > extern int arch_setup_additional_pages(struct linux_binprm *bprm, > - int executable_stack); > + int uses_interp); > > why didnt you just add a new uses_interp argument? I could have but I noticed at the same time that executable_stack is unused. If somebody finds a need for the executable_stack argument it can easily re-added but I can't think of a use for it. Ergo I removed it. > executable_stack is passed in to potentially enable architectures to be > aware of how conservative/legacy the address-space of the binary is - > whether to randomize the vdso, etc. exec-shield used to take advantage > of that. What has address space layout / randomization to do with executable_stack? You lost me there. > But there seems to be no in-tree use of that (and if one arises it can > just add back that parameter), and i dont want to stand in the way of > your pull request either, so for the x86 bits: > > Acked-by: Ingo Molnar Thanks. I'll add it. -- blue skies, Martin. "Reality continues to ruin my life." - Calvin. -- 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/