[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: non-executable stack (via PT_GNU_STACK) not being enforced

On jeu., 2010-10-14 at 13:35 -0500, Jordon Bedwell wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-10-14 at 20:21 +0200, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
> > I'm not sure it's a solution Debian can advertise.
> I know it's not, that is why later down the discussion we brought up the
> installer giving people the option to either choose the kernel or
> building a script that will check for PAE and go from there.
> > That's not the point (and tbh, I don't run any i386 kernel anyway). But
> > we do have users which will have issues, and we do have a -bigmem kernel
> > which can be used for needing users. So yes I agree a way to propose the
> > -bigmem to users needing it would be nice, but I don't think setting it
> > the default kernel would work. But I basically see i386 as “the kernel
> > of the last chance”.
> Read above.  It was not meant to be a point, but a mere example.  You
> can't stay legacy forever (well you /can/ but why would you want to?)

Well, in this case, to support our users, which still use non pae cpu.
And for non legacy users, I'd advertise using amd64 anyway. Not exactly
sure how much cpus don't support x86_64 while still supporting PAE/NX,
and if it's really worth it. But yeah, if you want to provide a patch to
the installer for Wheezy go ahead.

> > Was that really necessary?
> Yes, because out of context replies are out of context.  While it should
> have not so blunt (which I am really working on ~ you should have seen
> the way I would have replied a year ago) it had to be brought up :P

It was a rhetorical question.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: