On Sat, 2005-12-10 at 01:23 +0100, Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote:
> On Saturday 10 December 2005 12:32 am, Marco Gerards wrote:
> > Anyways, my primary concerns are making things work and moving
> > forwards to something that is releasable. Making GRUB work in a way
> > so it works like everyone wants
"Yoshinori K. Okuji" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Friday 09 December 2005 12:40 am, Peter Jones wrote:
>> Now, the obvious retort to this is that no setuid programs are calling
>> grub, so it's not even one of those cases. That's not a good answer
>> either. I've got one I'd really *like* to
On Saturday 10 December 2005 12:32 am, Marco Gerards wrote:
> Wouldn't it be possible to use some other memory than the stack to
> implement trampolines? It's documented quite well:
By modifying GCC and a dynamic linker, it is possible.
> Anyways, my primary concerns are making things work and m
On Friday 09 December 2005 12:40 am, Peter Jones wrote:
> Now, the obvious retort to this is that no setuid programs are calling
> grub, so it's not even one of those cases. That's not a good answer
> either. I've got one I'd really *like* to call grub from, and it is
> pm-hibernate, through cons
Peter Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Would be alright if we could enable execute permission only on the specific
>> pages needed (as known by GCC)? GCC provides an ENABLE_EXECUTE_STACK macro,
>> but it seems that is not currently used on Linux. It is used on the various
>> BSDs.
>
> It wo
Hollis Blanchard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I really hope you're willing to entertain patches that remove use of
>> nested functions. If so, I'll certainly put some effort that direction
>> when next I look at moving RHEL and Fedora to GRUB 2.
>
> I am willing to entertain them.
>
> Marco fou
On Fri, 2005-12-09 at 16:49 -0600, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> On Thursday 08 December 2005 10:27, Peter Jones wrote:
> >
> > That being said, what's the reasoning for using this uncommon and
> > lossely defined extension in the first place? The way GRUB (both 2 and
> > Legacy) uses nested functions
On Thursday 08 December 2005 10:27, Peter Jones wrote:
>
> That being said, what's the reasoning for using this uncommon and
> lossely defined extension in the first place? The way GRUB (both 2 and
> Legacy) uses nested functions, it's no better than just having a method
> vector, and certainly no
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Since the GRUB2 tools built using a Linux GCC compiler will suffice at
> the moment, I can see why the team is not overly concerned with this
> issue. If GRUB2 is going to be portable(Mac OS X), then some changes
> will be needed to accomplish this goal.
GCC is a GNU p
Andrei Warkentin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Dec 8, 2005, at 4:01 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> The Mac OS X GCC compiler will not build GRUB2, due static linking
>> at address 0x2000; this error can be confirmed during the configure
>> process. If I could build GRUB2 using the Mac OS X G
On Thu, 2005-12-08 at 19:25 +0100, Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote:
> > There's a major point of contention being ignored here. OS vendors
> > don't want to ship executables which require an executable stack. Full
> > stop.
>
> I'd like to hear your opinion as a distributor about the trend of prohibit
Aside from compiling/linking issues, there is another thing to keep
in mind should there ever be a port of bootable GRUB2 parts to OF/
Mach-O. OS X uses a different calling convention, so any assembly
bits would have to be properly adjusted.
I still think the best solution here would be to c
December 8, 2005 08:10 PM
To: 'The development of GRUB 2'
Subject: Re: GRUB2 Build on Mac OS X
I understand (still had my mind on GRUB 1 :)) - then looks like two
GCC installations will be
required to construct GRUB2 on OS X - one to generate OS X-hosted
GRUB utilities (which will
be Mac
Thursday, December 8, 2005 08:10 PM
> To: 'The development of GRUB 2'
> Subject: Re: GRUB2 Build on Mac OS X
>
> I understand (still had my mind on GRUB 1 :)) - then looks like two
> GCC installations will be
> required to construct GRUB2 on OS X - one to generate OS X-hosted
&
Hmm, I just tried ./configure-ing.I have my powerpc-linux crosscompiler tools as powerpc-linux-{gcc, ld, ar, objcopy, etc}. It seems the configuration utility makes no distinction between compiler toolchain to make system utilities and compiler chain to make bootable executables.Naturally, this bei
Andrei Warkentin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I understand (still had my mind on GRUB 1 :)) - then looks like two
> GCC installations will be
> required to construct GRUB2 on OS X - one to generate OS X-hosted
> GRUB utilities (which will
> be Mach-O files), and one to generate ELF files that wi
I understand (still had my mind on GRUB 1 :)) - then looks like two
GCC installations will be
required to construct GRUB2 on OS X - one to generate OS X-hosted
GRUB utilities (which will
be Mach-O files), and one to generate ELF files that will be used in
the booting process.
On Dec 8, 200
Andrei Warkentin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Andrei,
> There is another issue with GRUB2 on OS X which I am not sure has
> been brought up yet.
> Right now, AFAIK (but I haven't tested it), GRUB2 (the part that runs
> from OpenFrimware) can be built
> with a bootstrap powerpc-elf-targetted GCC
Hello,
There is another issue with GRUB2 on OS X which I am not sure has
been brought up yet.
Right now, AFAIK (but I haven't tested it), GRUB2 (the part that runs
from OpenFrimware) can be built
with a bootstrap powerpc-elf-targetted GCC hosted on OS X. However,
the local GRUB2 binary (one
Peter Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 2005-12-08 at 13:26 +0100, Marco Gerards wrote:
>
>> It's not acceptable to me to just remove the nested functions because
>> someone broke some unofficial build of gcc. When an executable stack
>> is not available, there are the following options
On Thursday 08 December 2005 05:27 pm, Peter Jones wrote:
> That being said, what's the reasoning for using this uncommon and
> lossely defined extension in the first place?
Because it is documented very well in the manual and it makes our development
easier. If you don't use nested functions, yo
On Thu, 2005-12-08 at 13:26 +0100, Marco Gerards wrote:
> It's not acceptable to me to just remove the nested functions because
> someone broke some unofficial build of gcc. When an executable stack
> is not available, there are the following options (as I see them):
I could be wrong, but GCC ap
I think the best solution would be to entirely avoid Apple's bundled
OS X-specific GCC. An powerpc-elf -targetted GCC cross-compiler
hosted on OS X should be perfect for both OpenSolaris and for GRUB2.
On Dec 8, 2005, at 12:10 AM, Andre Smith wrote:
The GRUB2 build fails on Mac OS X, due to
Andre Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Andre,
> The GRUB2 build fails on Mac OS X, due to non-support of nested
> functions in GCC on OS X. The reasoning behind this, the GCC
> implementation of nested functions uses stack based execution.
> Hackers use buffer overflows, along with stack base
The GRUB2 build fails on Mac OS X, due to non-support of nested
functions in GCC on OS X. The reasoning behind this, the GCC
implementation of nested functions uses stack based execution.
Hackers use buffer overflows, along with stack based execution, to
exploit weaknesses in poorly written
25 matches
Mail list logo
