On Tue, 25 Sep 2007, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> As suggested elsewhere I have had a go at tracking this down. Previous
> problems of this kind were introduced as a result of using 'weak'
> declarations to provide default implementations. This investigation led
> me to the following commit:
> commit c60473b5d32ea6cf4561232bc852bacd3a513528
> Author: Jiri Kosina <[email protected]>
> Date: Sat Sep 15 01:49:49 2007 +0000
> i386-and-x86_64-randomize-brk
> Backing this change out seems to get us past this problem. If we are to
> support compilers of this age, and I believe we currently do, then we
> probabally need to avoid the weak declarations and use the Kconfig
> system to provide the alternatives here.
> Jiri?
Hi,
actually, my first patch wasn't using weak symbols, but I have been
convinced that it's the way to go(tm). Please see
http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/9/1/131 and the ongoing thread.
I am fine with replacing the brk randomization patch with the one that
wasn't using weak symbols (posted in the mentioned thread too), I have no
strong opinion either way.
Thanks,
--
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
