linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: 2.4 kernels + >=binutils-2.14.90.0.8

To: linux-mips@linux-mips.org
Subject: Re: 2.4 kernels + >=binutils-2.14.90.0.8
From: Kumba <kumba@gentoo.org>
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2004 01:11:20 -0500
In-reply-to: <20040309040919.GA11345@linux-mips.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> <20040309040919.GA11345@linux-mips.org>
Reply-to: kumba@gentoo.org
Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113
Ralf Baechle wrote:

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

I'm aware of the inability to fully support PaX on mips. It does give some support, mainly in the Address Space Layout Randomization bit, so it's better than nothing, imho. The binutils patch for this support in gentoo isn't targetted at mips anyways, it's applied for all the supported architectures.


--Kumba

--
"Such is oft the course of deeds that move the wheels of the world: small hands do them because they must, while the eyes of the great are elsewhere." --Elrond

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>