On Wed, 6 Apr 2011, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > From: Jiri Kosina <[email protected]> > > Subject: brk: COMPAT_BRK: fix detection of randomized brk > > > > 5520e89 ("brk: fix min_brk lower bound computation for COMPAT_BRK") > > tried to get the whole logic of brk randomization for legacy (libc5-based) > > applications finally right. > > > > It turns out that the way to detect whether brk has actually been > > randomized in > > the end or not introduced by that patch still doesn't work for those > > binaries, > > as reported by Geert. > > > > I don't like it, but currently see no better option than a bit flag in > > task_struct to catch the CONFIG_COMPAT_BRK && randomize_va_space == 2 > > case. > > > > Signed-off-by: Jiri Kosina <[email protected]> > > Tested-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <[email protected]> > > --- > > > > I am not really happy about introducing the bit flag, but I currently > > don't see another option. And it's only for the legacy CONFIG_COMPAT_BRK > > case anyway. > > > > Andrew, Ingo, any opinions/objections? > > > > If not -- Andrew, I guess this should go into current -rc still. > > And in 2.6.38-stable. > > Does anyone still have libc5 binaries for i386?
The first time we introduced brk randomization, Pavel Machek reported a problem with some libc5-based binary on some ancient x86 system he had. So I am afraid there still might be sparse occurences out there. -- Jiri Kosina SUSE Labs, Novell Inc. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-m68k" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
