2011/7/14 Petr Salinger :
>> I also wonder if we should hunt down the other Linux-specific ELF
>> notes in that file.
>
> I would say we should ignore all Linux-specific ELF notes.
Yes, but that makes the patch more intrusive, increasing the
maintenance cost. Is it worth it?
> Or in our glibc-po
It looks like a collision, namely between
AT_STACKPROT x AT_SECURE
Here's a possible patch to fix this. I haven't tested it yet. Does
this look like the right approach?
I also wonder if we should hunt down the other Linux-specific ELF
notes in that file.
I would say we should ignore all Li
2011/7/14 Petr Salinger :
>
> It looks like a collision, namely between
>
> AT_STACKPROT x AT_SECURE
Good guess Petr, it is indeed AT_SECURE.
Here's a possible patch to fix this. I haven't tested it yet. Does
this look like the right approach?
I also wonder if we should hunt down the other Lin
I should add a few things.
This system (and our network) is running IPv4 and IPv6. The DNS server
is IPv4, but can resolve IPv6 records. Disabling IPv6 on this
system ( |net.ipv6.conf.all.disable_ipv6=1 |in sysctl.conf) does not
effect the timeout behavior of getaddrinfo().
The strace outp
As for LD_SHOW_AUXV=yes, I tried different combinations and it is
always ignored, no matter what.
Thanks for investigating. It might be related to elf notes supplied by
kernel.
FreeBSD 9 added these defines:
#define AT_CANARY 16 /* Canary for SSP. */
#define AT_C
5 matches
Mail list logo
