* Pavel Machek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > I am still not completely sure. It might be a regression, but it
> > > > also might just trigger the bug in ancient version in libc.so.5
> > > > which might be fixed in some later version [...]
> > >
> > > which too is a regression ...
> > >
> > > really, lets add a sysctl for this, and a .config option that
> > > either disables or enables it. Then we will default to disabled.
> > > (but users can enable it - and distros can build their kernels
> > > with this .config option enabled)
> >
> > I don't think kernel should care about programs which are buggy and
> > make invalid assumptions, and that's the case here. I remember we
> > have been
>
> Those "invalid assumptions" crept into documentation. Everybody knew
> heap starts at the end of bss in 1995.
what matters most isnt really any documentation but what programs really
do, and how it affects users.
in this case i think we should offer a .config option to set the
randomization behavior, and should perhaps make the more conservative
one the default.
New distros (with 10,000+ binaries that work just fine with
randomization) will turn on max randomization by default, while people
like you who mix 1996 binaries with a 2008 kernel will use a more
conservative default.
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
