From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qt1-x82a.google.com (mail-qt1-x82a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::82a]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 747F43858D28 for ; Mon, 25 Apr 2022 15:31:02 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 747F43858D28 Received: by mail-qt1-x82a.google.com with SMTP id ay11so10531451qtb.4 for ; Mon, 25 Apr 2022 08:31:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent:subject :content-language:to:cc:references:from:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=8S5GNdQOAy+HpH9LypUNjalnWSkGcg2h1/4Xb87GGxA=; b=S8N/6tjhxhAWKgyz86tv87H6q5Yi9xUrFdnLeXg4cq06sC9CwHhA7aphR1TP3gyqte TtuAmZnjVAG+MWONyvYBH2hUb0YBybr98Doktb8zYk2Vjs/8eJF5bJaa7ptCkKayP1o1 StYeTSXuPxaVBqlrxoRZspXQTDnJ31If3cMUHlO/OLMTRzGAqDlnJl0uF50v/qUBxSv5 iTqlJZx6LphmJnlKT0U/O84NhfH97XoxPPfmFpKVA3sLkn70sgPHk+LfWrwvbMausohe AEdosvgZeImmBaXoNF/p4RJgwTBLWW3L/ib5GwUlYujJd2/BjHa456+saWR+ZAfcBciO 5YrA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531cV9PRriuK+mPNlyWY/WZa5ZbGp9rPeyK9PkLeW11+sMS38/o0 5GiMyQayYl1XygiziNTclAU= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyRKi9l+7VoKsPUDGab0fPgSs6noG2YAjtIgZeG/4BHqjo3Lp3PjaWsCl8PT1pvhZvp54bq0g== X-Received: by 2002:ac8:5b15:0:b0:2f2:4529:bdd6 with SMTP id m21-20020ac85b15000000b002f24529bdd6mr12122260qtw.353.1650900661804; Mon, 25 Apr 2022 08:31:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [172.31.0.204] (c-73-63-24-84.hsd1.ut.comcast.net. [73.63.24.84]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b84-20020ae9eb57000000b0069c8ca73b94sm5121856qkg.115.2022.04.25.08.31.00 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 25 Apr 2022 08:31:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2022 09:30:59 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.1 Subject: Re: [committed] exec-stack warning for test which wants executable stacks Content-Language: en-US To: Nick Clifton , =?UTF-8?Q?Martin_Li=c5=a1ka?= Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, Binutils References: <8e46710d-573b-bd06-cb80-518575dceefc@suse.cz> <615c917b-1109-da5e-9727-a47f60f3e6bf@redhat.com> From: Jeff Law In-Reply-To: <615c917b-1109-da5e-9727-a47f60f3e6bf@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, FREEMAIL_FROM, NICE_REPLY_A, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: binutils@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Binutils mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2022 15:31:03 -0000 On 4/25/2022 9:26 AM, Nick Clifton wrote: > Hi Jeff, > >   Just FYI - I am also looking at adding in another warning.  This > time for >   when the linker creates a PT_LOAD segment which has all of the RWX > flags >   set.  At the moment my testing seems to show that it only causes > problems >   when a custom linker script is used that defines its own program > headers >   and does not provide separate headers for code and data. That also sounds quite reasonable.    My biggest worry would be the embedded targets which have their own linker scripts -- but like the executable stack warning, I think you should go for it and we'll deal with the fallout. jeff