Question - intention of UCLIBC_BUILD_NOEXECSTACK?

bugs at andrewmcdonnell.net bugs at andrewmcdonnell.net
Mon Aug 25 04:41:17 UTC 2014


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

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