| 1 |
On Sat, 21 Sep 2013 20:01:57 +0200 |
| 2 |
Hinnerk van Bruinehsen <h.v.bruinehsen@×××××××××.de> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> > [...] |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> Why would you remove XT-pax flags anyways? |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Because I don't use XT flags (yet) and I like to keep things "clean" |
| 9 |
and consistent. I have PAX_MARKINGS="PT" in my make.conf, so every ELF |
| 10 |
is PT marked only. This was the reason that I removed the XT marks from |
| 11 |
the nVidia shared object. On the other hand it excludes the possibility |
| 12 |
of inconsistent XT and PT markings. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> It's just xattr (shouldn't |
| 15 |
> cause much overhead) and since PT-pax is going to be deprecated (iirc |
| 16 |
> soon), you have a backup with the XT-pax flags (so you don't have |
| 17 |
> breakage when the switch occurs). |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
I know and agree that XT markings are superior, especially for a closed |
| 20 |
source binary file where altering the ELF header is not necessarily |
| 21 |
safe. But I was thinking to wait until XT-pax markings will get stable |
| 22 |
(bug #465000). |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Regards, |
| 25 |
Balint |
Archives