Bug#321718: Upgrade caused many libs to complain about "executable stack"
On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 03:03:01PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 08:59:17PM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> > This modification was done because mprotect returned EFAULT instead of
> > ENOMEM, that was simply POSIX violation. The actual problem is linux
> > kernel 2.4. But in order to work glibc 2.3.5 on etch, we need to fix
> > adhoc patch to change dl-execstack.c. I don't know it's acceptable
> > for upstream, but it's worth fixing. If it'll be rejected, this patch
> > should be marked as "until-etch" if etch does not support any 2.4
> > kernel hopefully. Now the patch that I have not tested yet. Is this
> > solution desired for the next 2.3.5-4?
> Etch certainly won't support 2.4.18 officially; that will be an
> oldstable-1 kernel at the time etch releases. Is it really worth trying
> to maintain compatibility with that kernel?
> AIUI, glibc 2.3.5 is currently compatible with the sarge and etch 2.4
> kernels. That seems sufficient to me; why not just mark glibc in the
> preinst as being incompatible with old 2.4 kernels?
I'm fine with either of these solutions.