On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 19:04, Andrew Morton <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 09:59:50 +0200 Geert Uytterhoeven <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> CC stable for v2.6.38
>>
>> ..
>>
>> > 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.
>> >
>
> There's nothing in this changelog which tells us that the problem is
> serious enough to need fixing in -stable. If there had been, I'd have
> added cc:stable to the changelog myself.
>
> So. Why do we think this needs fixing in 2.6.38+?
Because it's a regression on running (albeit very old) userspace binaries.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- [email protected]
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
_______________________________________________
stable mailing list
[email protected]
http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/stable
