From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Jan D." Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: `exec shield' test in configure too strict? Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 00:11:19 +0200 (CEST) Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Message-ID: <200410052211.i95MBJxm023321@coolsville.localdomain> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1097014350 7501 80.91.229.6 (5 Oct 2004 22:12:30 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 22:12:30 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Miles Bader , emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Oct 06 00:12:18 2004 Return-path: Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CExXd-00072r-00 for ; Wed, 06 Oct 2004 00:12:17 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CExeH-0007WT-5S for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 05 Oct 2004 18:19:09 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1CExeB-0007WH-S0 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 05 Oct 2004 18:19:03 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1CExeB-0007W5-Eo for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 05 Oct 2004 18:19:03 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CExeB-0007W2-BQ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 05 Oct 2004 18:19:03 -0400 Original-Received: from [195.54.107.70] (helo=mxfep01.bredband.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1CExX7-000520-Ac; Tue, 05 Oct 2004 18:11:45 -0400 Original-Received: from coolsville.localdomain ([213.115.26.74] [213.115.26.74]) by mxfep01.bredband.com with ESMTP id <20041005221144.MEYW3239.mxfep01.bredband.com@coolsville.localdomain>; Wed, 6 Oct 2004 00:11:44 +0200 Original-Received: (from jhd@localhost) by coolsville.localdomain (8.12.9-20030917/8.12.9/Submit) id i95MBJxm023321; Wed, 6 Oct 2004 00:11:19 +0200 In-Reply-To: "from Stefan Monnier at Oct 5, 2004 05:44:41 pm" Original-To: Stefan Monnier X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:27963 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:27963 > > I have checked in a test that runs a program and sees if the heap start > > address is random. Can you try it on the Debian-with-a-Redhat-kernel > > machine (I forgot its name)? > > I think there's no point bothering with that. > If /proc/sys/kernel/exec-shield is non-zero, there's a risk we may need > setarch, so if setarch is available, use it. > > If /proc/sys/kernel/exec-shield is non-zero and there's no setarch, we > should just try anyway and see if it works. If it works correctly, great. > If it doesn't work, there's little we can do anyway, so we can just output > a message referring the user to PROBLEMS. That would involve detetcting that the core dump from temacs is due to exactly this problem. I think that is hard to do. Or do you suggest that any temacs core dump should give a message about etc/PROBLEMS? > Trying to predict whether it's going to work or not doesn't seem to make > much sense here since it doesn't allow us to resolve any problem we can't > solve otherwise. It is so much better to get this message at configure time rather than very late in the build stage. Jan D.