* Rusty Russell <rusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > But it turns out that this is a known problem with FC1's glibc and the > exec-shield patches (google for FC1 glibc vdso). [..] no, i think that conclusion is wrong. The FC1 glibc and vdso problems *when mixing a FC2 kernel with a FC1 glibc* were due to exec-shield enforcing non-exec for the vdso. > [...] When Ingo and Arjan convinced me to push their code from > exec-shield, they conveniently didn't mention this. this bug has nothing to do with nonexec restrictions. [ Also, this all was _years_ and hundreds of bugs ago, when upstream's position was still a cocky "who the hell needs protection against overflows" and "go away with this non-exec crap" so we were pretty much alone trying to introduce those features. So any suggestion of intention on our part would be quite unfair. ] Ingo
