linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Adding(?) XI support to MIPS-Linux?

To: Brian Foster <brian.foster@innova-card.com>
Subject: Re: Adding(?) XI support to MIPS-Linux?
From: Thiemo Seufer <ths@networkno.de>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 10:57:02 +0100
Cc: "Kevin D. Kissell" <KevinK@paralogos.com>, Andrew Dyer <adyer@righthandtech.com>, linux-mips@linux-mips.org
In-reply-to: <a537dd660806100232v4cbf2cfeo397e94ac5a4d2104@mail.gmail.com>
Original-recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org
References: <200806091658.10937.brian.foster@innova-card.com> <484D856B.5030306@paralogos.com> <20080609204627.GE11233@networkno.de> <200806101119.06227.brian.foster@innova-card.com> <a537dd660806100232v4cbf2cfeo397e94ac5a4d2104@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Brian Foster wrote:
[snip]
>  2) Kevin D. Kissell wrote:
>  2)[ ... ]
>  2) > Well, strictly speaking, you wouldn't actually *need* to modify
>  2) > binutils to make specially tagged binaries.  [ ... ]
>  2)
>  2) This exists already in ld's -z execstack/noexecstack feature.
> 
> Good point.  Thanks for the reminder.
> 
>  2) It is not used by default because too many things depend on executable
>  2) stacks on MIPS.
> 
> Ah!  Can you be more specific please?  At the present time
> I'm only aware of three situations where executable stacks
> are magically used ("magic" meaning it's being done without
> the programmer explicitly coding it):
> 
>   1. sigreturn.
>   2. something to do with FPU emulation?
>   3. pointer to a nested function (gcc extension).

Those, plus manually coded trampolines in e.g. foreign function
interfacing (which are typically hidden in some library). I don't
know if you can ignore that completely. :-)

> And, significantly, I am do not know of any need for the
> kernel-mode stacks to be executable.  Except, perhaps,
> for case 3, the above are (should be?) user-land only.

AFAIK nested functions are frowned upon in kernelspace.


Thiemo

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