Bug#321718: Upgrade caused many libs to complain about "executable stack"
On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 01:48:36PM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> At Mon, 8 Aug 2005 10:09:38 -0400,
> Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > > 08:47 <waldi> mprotect(0xbffff000, 4096, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE|PROT_EXEC|PROT_GROWSDOWN) = -1 EINVAL (Invalid argument)
> > > 08:47 <waldi> mprotect(0xbfff8000, 32768, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE|PROT_EXEC) = -1 EFAULT (Bad address)
> > > 08:55 <waldi> PROT_GROWSDOWN seems to be new in 2.4.21 and 2.5
> >
> > I have no idea why waldi thinks PROT_GROWSDOWN is the problem. Rather,
> > the EFAULT is the problem. At a guess, this is the case that we expect
> > ENOMEM for in dl-execstack.c, but 2.4.18 is returning EFAULT instead
> > for the same case.
>
> I don't know what the exact problem is - Does this problem occur with
> 2.4 kernel? Can all furious PaX reports be fixed using 2.6 kernel?
This is separate from the PaX problems - it's stock 2.4. I don't know
why it happens, but someone would need to set up a 2.4 system to debug
it on.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC
Reply to: