On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 09:11:43AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 03:25:19AM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 05:05:41PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > > > The Program Header identifiers are internal to the linker scripts. In > > > preparation for moving the NOTES segment declaration into RO_DATA, > > > standardize the identifier for the PT_NOTE entry to "note" as used by > > > all other architectures that emit PT_NOTE. > > > > All other archs are wrong, and "notes" is a much better name. This > > segment does not contain a single "note", but multiple "notes". > > True, but the naming appears to be based off the Program Header name of > "PT_NOTE". Ah, so that's why the kernel segment (which isn't text btw, it's rwx) is called "load" :-P (Not convinced. Some arch just got it wrong, and many others blindly copied it? That sounds a lot more likely imo.) > Regardless, it is an entirely internal-to-the-linker-script > identifier, so I am just consolidating on a common name with the least > number of collateral changes. Yes, that's what I'm complaining about. Names *matter*, internal names doubly so. So why replace a good name with a worse name? Because it is slightly less work for you? Segher p.s. Thanks for doing this, removing the powerpc workaround etc. :-)
