Re: PowerPC paxtest results w/ gcc-4.1

[Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>]

Gabriel Paubert writes:

> I agree, but I don't know why you believe it would cause 
> a machine check (0x200): from my docs, it is an ISI (0x400). 

I don't believe it would cause a machine check either, but that is
what Matt Sealey was saying.  I don't know where he got that idea.

> BTW, there is one way to make pages non executable: mark
> them as guarded, but it will have a significant cost in
> terms of performance. 

Indeed.  I guess we could do that as a config option for machines that
really want maximum security at the expense of performance, but I
don't think all users would want that.

Paul.