On Sun, 2006-05-21 at 12:41 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * 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. Interesting. I'll see if I can find a spare machine to try installing FC1 on tomorrow then, see if I can figure this one out. I can't think how this could happen, though. > > [...] 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. ] Sorry if I was narky. I tried to do the right thing and get more of execshield in, rather than just what I needed, but it seems I screwed up somewhere. With the Wesnoth 1.2 feature freeze next week, my spare time to chase bugs I don't need to is limited 8( Cheers, Rusty. -- ccontrol: http://ccontrol.ozlabs.org
