torsdag 3 maj 2018 kl. 06:19:20 CEST skrev du:
> On 05/02/2018 07:05 PM, Magnus Granberg wrote:
> > torsdag 3 maj 2018 kl. 01:48:16 CEST skrev du:
> >> On 05/02/2018 06:17 PM, Magnus Granberg wrote:
> >>> torsdag 3 maj 2018 kl. 01:07:51 CEST skrev Daniel Santos:
> >>>> Hello
> >>>>
> >>>> On 05/01/2018 06:32 AM, Magnus Granberg wrote:
> >>>>> New patch
> >>>>> libgcc/ChangeLog:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 2018-05-01 Magnus Granberg <zo...@gentoo.org>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> * config/i386/resms64.h: Add .note.GNU-stack section
> >>>>> * config/i386/resms64f.h: Likewise.
> >>>>> * config/i386/resms64fx.h: Likewise.
> >>>>> * config/i386/resms64x.h: Likewise.
> >>>>> * config/i386/savms64.h: Likewise.
> >>>>> * config/i386/savms64f.h: Likewise.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ---
> >>>>
> >>>> Well this isn't correct either because you are outside of the inclusion
> >>>> guard. Can you please move this up a line?
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> Daniel
> >>>
> >>> /libgcc/ChangeLog:
> >>> 2018-05-01 Magnus Granberg <zo...@gentoo.org>
> >>>
> >>> * config/i386/resms64.h: Add .note.GNU-stack section
> >>> * config/i386/resms64f.h: Likewise.
> >>> * config/i386/resms64fx.h: Likewise.
> >>> * config/i386/resms64x.h: Likewise.
> >>> * config/i386/savms64.h: Likewise.
> >>> * config/i386/savms64f.h: Likewise.
> >>>
> >>> ---
> >>
> >> No, I meant to move the changes up a line so that, if for some reason
> >> the header was included twice, that it wouldn't output the section
> >>
> >> twice. Example:
> >> MS2SYSV_STUB_END(savms64_18)
> >>
> >> +#if·defined(__linux__)·&&·defined(__ELF__)
> >> +.section·.note.GNU-stack,"",%progbits
> >> +#endif
> >>
> >> #endif·/*·__x86_64__·*/
> >
> > Don't work on multilib
>
> What do you mean? The functions do not exist on anything other than
> x86_64. Emitting the .section when the function is not going to be
> subsequently emitted will apply it the .section to whatever happens to
> be next in the assembler output, so no, that's wrong.
>
For you have the executable stack in 32bit and 64bit libs
Look at the bug.
> >> But upon further reflection, I think it can be cleanly added to
> >> i386-asm.h. Does that look sane Jakub? (I haven't tried it)
> >
> > Don't work on multilib
> >
> >> Also, for the sake of my education, I don't exactly understand what the
> >> problem is as I haven't been keeping up with pax and hardening. I just
> >> want to clarify that the stack shouldn't be executable. These are not
> >> actual "functions" per-se (i.e., they do not adhere to any ABI), they
> >> operate on the stack of the calling function.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Daniel
> >
> > /Magnus
