Question - intention of UCLIBC_BUILD_NOEXECSTACK?

Khem Raj raj.khem at gmail.com
Mon Aug 25 05:04:07 UTC 2014


On 14-08-25 15:41:17, bugs at andrewmcdonnell.net wrote:
> On 2014-08-25 15:17, Khem Raj wrote:
> >On 14-08-25 12:06:16, bugs at andrewmcdonnell.net wrote:
> 
> <snipped>
> 
> >>
> >>I guess the gap in my knowledge is how uClibc, by only applying to
> >>assembler
> >>files, meets "marking all libraries and executables" when the GNU_STACK
> >>flag
> >>is missing from the ELF images? Note it has been a very long time since
> >>I
> >
> >it wont. Can you patch UCLIBC_BUILD_NOEXECSTACK code to pass the linker
> >option as well ?
> 
> Yes, I did, that was how I confirmed the UCLIBC_BUILD_NOEXECSTACK option
> seems to be ambiguously named.
> 
> I have two alternative patches: either
> (a) a patch that adds a new option UCLIBC_BUILD_NOEXECSTACK_ALL, to retain
> meaning and backward compatibility of the existing config option,
> (b) a patch that updates UCLIBC_BUILD_NOEXECSTACK to apply at the linker
> stage

(b) is what we need.

> 
> I guess I was trying to find out if there was a reason things are the way
> they are, prior to submitting one of my patches.
> 
> --Andrew
> 
> ---
> 
> http://blog.oldcomputerjunk.net


More information about the uClibc mailing list