lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Jul]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: serious performance regression due to NX patch
>>>>> On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 13:17:20 -0700 (PDT), Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> said:

Linus> No. Make it a CONFIG_DEFAULT_NOEXEC and make the relevant
Linus> architectures do a

Linus> define_bool DEFAULT_NOEXEC y

Linus> in their Kconfig files.

Linus> In general, we should _never_ use an
Linus> architecture-define. They just always end up becoming more
Linus> and more hairy, and less and less obvious what they are all
Linus> about.

Linus> So instead, make a readable and explicit config define, and
Linus> let each architecture just set it (or not) as they wish.

Oops, I responded too fast here. This is still wrong: on ia64 (and
x86-64, I believe), you'll want DEFAULT_NOEXEC for native binaries,
but DEFAULT_EXEC for x86 binaries.

So I think it would be better to have a VM_STACK_EXEC_FLAGS macro in
an asm header file (with suitable default in asm-generic).

--david
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:04    [W:0.115 / U:0.360 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site