Hi Stephan, all, Hmm, I'm not sure I understand why linking with "-z noexecstack" would be a hack.
To me it is an additional security measure, to explicitly mark an executable to not require executable stack pages (and not rely on possibly incesure defaults). So, I guess I would choose to keep linking with "-z noexecstack" (and in fact think, every executable in the system should be linked that way). Just my 2 cents, Matthias On 06/22/2010 09:31 AM, Stephan Bergmann wrote: > The fix for <http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=110197> > "solenv: remove -Wl,-z,noexecstack hack," on CWS sb126 targeting OOo > 3.4, removes from the OOo code base virtually all mentions of > noexecstack (see issue for details). Most mentions were in Linux-only > code (where the need for the hack was probably only motivated by the old > Sun Hamburg tool chain, and so the hack is no longer needed after the > recent upgrade of that tool chain). > > But some mentions were in code relevant for Linux and FreeBSD. I assume > that this was by accident rather than by design, and the > -Wl,-z,noexecstack was never really necessary on FreeBSD (and it was > just lumped together with other pieces of code that actually are > relevant on both platforms). > > Let me know if this change causes any problems, > > -Stephan > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
