Bug#321718: Upgrade caused many libs to complain about "executable stack"
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?
Regards,
-- gotom
Reply to: