Bug#1022787: libc6-dev: Lintian warns that all mips*el executables have executable stack
Hi,
On 2023-01-16 13:26, Guillem Jover wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Mon, 2023-01-16 at 12:47:23 +0100, Axel Beckert wrote:
> > Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > > On 2022-10-26 22:09, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > > > Note that the other official architecture still have a kernel
> > > > compatibility set to 3.2, so that will make a difference between
> > > > architectures. There are discussions to increase it upstream, but this
> > > > won't happened for bookworm.
> > > >
> > > > On 2022-10-25 21:07, Simon McVittie wrote:
> > > > > Or, if the mips porters consider this backwards compatibility to be
> > > > > more important than the security hardening of a non-executable stack,
> > > > > then Lintian should stop issuing warnings about the executable stack on
> > > > > mips*el to improve its signal/noise ratio.
> > > >
> > > > At this stage there is nothing that can be done on the glibc side, the
> > > > decision has to be taken by the mips porters.
> > >
> > > We are getting very close to the toolchain freeze. Any decision about
> > > that?
> >
> > JFYI: There is the request to disable this tag completely on MIPS
> > architectures in https://bugs.debian.org/1025436
> >
> > Now I wonder if this would actually help or worsen the situation for
> > the glibc maintainers.
> >
> > Guillem: You wrote something about "bullseye" in #1025436. I think you
> > meant "bookworm" instead. Am I right?
>
> Indeed, sorry, I was going by Aurelien's comment, but botched the
> release name. :) But in any case, I'll defer to whatever take Aurelien
> or other glibc maintainers have on this.
Given we got no decision from the MIPS porters before the toolchain
freeze, we'll have to live with the executable stack on mips*el for
bookworm.
Therefore I believe it's a good idea to disable that tag on mips*el on
the lintian side.
Cheers
Aurelien
--
Aurelien Jarno GPG: 4096R/1DDD8C9B
aurelien@aurel32.net http://www.aurel32.net
Reply to: