| To: | Kumba <kumba@gentoo.org> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: 2.4 kernels + >=binutils-2.14.90.0.8 |
| From: | Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org> |
| Date: | Tue, 9 Mar 2004 05:09:19 +0100 |
| Cc: | linux-mips@linux-mips.org |
| In-reply-to: | <404D1909.1020005@gentoo.org> |
| Original-recipient: | rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org |
| References: | <404D0132.3020202@gentoo.org> <20040308234450.GF16163@rembrandt.csv.ica.uni-stuttgart.de> <404D0A18.6050802@gentoo.org> <20040309003447.GH16163@rembrandt.csv.ica.uni-stuttgart.de> <404D1909.1020005@gentoo.org> |
| Sender: | linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.4.1i |
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 08:08:25PM -0500, Kumba wrote: > Hmm, well, The readelf -l and -S output from a 2.14.90.0.7-based > cross-compiler is attached, along with -l & -S outout from the > 2.15.90.0.1.1 (--version reports 2.15.90.0.1) as well for comparison. > > The PAX_FLAGS bit comes from a patch added in gentoo for PaX support in > binaries. More info on PaX is at http://pax.grsecurity.net. I'm going > to rebuild my kernel cross-compiler without that one patch and see what > the results are. PAX can't be fully supported on MIPS anyway; the architecture doesn't have a no-exec flag in it's pages. PAX docs are bullshit btw. execution proection doesn't require a split TLB and anyway, the MIPS uTLBs are split. Ralf |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: 2.4 kernels + >=binutils-2.14.90.0.8, Thiemo Seufer |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Patch for o32/n32 mmap on 64-bit kernel, Ralf Baechle |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: 2.4 kernels + >=binutils-2.14.90.0.8, Thiemo Seufer |
| Next by Thread: | Re: 2.4 kernels + >=binutils-2.14.90.0.8, Kumba |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |