On Wednesday 09 November 2005 17:38, Andy Polyakov wrote: > > (and doesn't affect any non-linux platform anyway). > How come it turns from unsure "should be portable" to definitive > "doesn't affect" so easily:-)
What I tried to say was that the extra section is ignored on platforms that do not use a recent binutils toolchain, which interpret this section "magically". > But anyway. My vote goes to alternative method, which can be deployed as > easily as './config -Wa,--noexecstack' prior make. Because it can be > taylored to various needs/environments as easy as it can be deployed and > without headaches of cross-platform verification or running into subtle > bugs. Works for me as well, its kind of a brute force hammer though. In any case the real intention is to document that libcrypto *should* work fine without executable stack (and it does, given there is only one tiny piece of assembler which questions the whole thing), and for that, one patch in upstream is needed, and IMHO it should configure with non-executable stack by default if the preconditions are met. Dirk ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List openssl-dev@openssl.org Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
