* Jiri Kosina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Feb 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> > i'm wondering about the following detail: i guess on 64-bit x86
> > kernels we could default to !CONFIG_COMPAT_BRK? In 1997 there was no
> > 64-bit x86. Maybe for compat 32-bit binaries we could keep it off,
> > but always do it for 64-bit binaries.
>
> So what do you think is proper behavior in situation when
> CONFIG_COMPAT_BRK=N on 64bit kernel, and 32bit-binary is loaded in
> 32bit emulation?
>
> We can either leave the brk as-is, but that is in contradiction to
> user explictly specifying CONFIG_COMPAT_BRK=N. Is this what you
> propose?
>
> Or we can randomize brk start in such situation, but that is the
> behavior we currently automatically have due to CONFIG_COMPAT_BRK=N,
> so no change is needed.
thinking about it ... i think we should just keep this simple, and when
COMPAT_BRK=y then we disable brk randomization globally. If !COMPAT_BRK
then we do brk randomization globally as well. (and that is probably
what users want the sysctl to do anyway - users wont necessarily know
whether the app breakage they want to solve is due to 32-bit or 64-bit.)
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/
