From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EFA643857340 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2024 19:15:33 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org EFA643857340 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 sourceware.org EFA643857340 Authentication-Results: server2.sourceware.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=170.10.133.124 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1718133336; cv=none; b=XZ6Dxy+hRb21J/gwoeqjWpqW1ELe9xC1YjJLgAkyVWmmC1zKMWna9gFHiDPSSng9lrZpJ0i5svG+vjyBrXlMmYrEylccz8CdYkdAGh170QysIr+cgLZlhPxTG2tWXjOqHN0NH6UR7jmsNzqL8QL57yp5XXjpwmo10sbUEYkIDOY= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1718133336; c=relaxed/simple; bh=6g2L6qirXPSoKTHqIk91EtXr/FECdm9fupa+x6gpbgo=; h=DKIM-Signature:From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version; b=Zfi/q4z2e2Py++6ZFOyXXWQp35su+YZmw1/PTcKau/tplxXw3RmuJlgIjWMsHvHJ81Oj9mWZxwJNwp/F54fRZiyaKIvpPqM9ggKBBRBqGdF0Q7fGQ4HoE7KxUEW/qyZ6Yqa1/q0BjLR8DVGcaOrMa57KY8MKsDcgCc4mT+xMxMA= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; server2.sourceware.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1718133333; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=eGKYQlCAw/3PToYVsmqZ9DRSlqKfrwXOjmRZrBUe+Zc=; b=dasy/7sPDRbZ6GueueFmroic5MPv+/p7k/+xkqDh/Ij1bGmpPnyDzf0TiqGL+ihzj356Ip mXXuQuC2YYLnk+FS8Pd3/wrTh7T/A4AEiKlFs9ru7G1FPPG9jx83/JKsqNSWj5wH63v0mX 4oTr5gR3MWGGPQfcHSRsIVM11lMCyg0= Received: from mx-prod-mc-03.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (ec2-54-186-198-63.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com [54.186.198.63]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-198-fSCho72OOFqh3r4mBF_zpg-1; Tue, 11 Jun 2024 15:15:29 -0400 X-MC-Unique: fSCho72OOFqh3r4mBF_zpg-1 Received: from mx-prod-int-03.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (mx-prod-int-03.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com [10.30.177.12]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mx-prod-mc-03.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 51D4D19560B2; Tue, 11 Jun 2024 19:15:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from oldenburg.str.redhat.com (unknown [10.39.192.222]) by mx-prod-int-03.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0632719560AF; Tue, 11 Jun 2024 19:15:25 +0000 (UTC) From: Florian Weimer To: Adhemerval Zanella Cc: libc-alpha@sourceware.org, Stephen Roettger , jeffxu@chromium.org, Carlos O'Donell Subject: Re: [RFC 1/5] linux: Remove __stack_prot In-Reply-To: <20240611153220.165430-2-adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org> (Adhemerval Zanella's message of "Tue, 11 Jun 2024 12:27:04 -0300") References: <20240611153220.165430-1-adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org> <20240611153220.165430-2-adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org> Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2024 21:15:22 +0200 Message-ID: <87a5jr5m0l.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.0 on 10.30.177.12 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,RCVD_IN_SBL_CSS,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,TXREP,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: * Adhemerval Zanella: > The __stack_prot is used by Linux to make the stack executable if > a modules requires it. It is also marked as RELRO, which requires > to change the segment permission to RW to update it. > > Also, there is no need to keep track of the flags: either the stack > will have the default permission of the ABI or should be change to > PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE | PROT_EXEC. The only additional flag, > PROT_GROWSDOWN or PROT_GROWSUP, is Linux only and can be deducted > from _STACK_GROWS_DOWN/_STACK_GROWS_UP. > > Also, the check_consistency was alredy removed some time ago. =E2=80=9Cthe check_consistency [function] was=E2=80=9D, I think. Patch looks okay to me. Reviewed-by: Florian Weimer Thanks, Florian