We cannot really avoid such and we're also not really at risk because of
them, as we control page table permissions ourselves rather than relying
on a loader of some sort.

Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>

--- a/xen/Makefile
+++ b/xen/Makefile
@@ -397,6 +397,8 @@ endif
 
 AFLAGS += -D__ASSEMBLY__
 
+LDFLAGS-$(call ld-option,--warn-rwx-segments) += --no-warn-rwx-segments
+
 CFLAGS += $(CFLAGS-y)
 # allow extra CFLAGS externally via EXTRA_CFLAGS_XEN_CORE
 CFLAGS += $(EXTRA_CFLAGS_XEN_CORE)

Hi,

You say future, has this option been merged or still in discussion on 
the ML?

On 06/05/2022 14:37, Jan Beulich wrote:
> We cannot really avoid such and we're also not really at risk because of
> them, as we control page table permissions ourselves rather than relying
> on a loader of some sort.

Is this a preventive commit, or you have seen it in action?

Cheers,

-- 
Julien Grall

On 06.05.2022 15:43, Julien Grall wrote:
> You say future, has this option been merged or still in discussion on 
> the ML?

"future" as in "no released version yet". The change is present on the
binutils master branch.

> On 06/05/2022 14:37, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> We cannot really avoid such and we're also not really at risk because of
>> them, as we control page table permissions ourselves rather than relying
>> on a loader of some sort.
> 
> Is this a preventive commit, or you have seen it in action?

I've seen it in action.

Jan

Hi Jan,

On 06/05/2022 14:46, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 06.05.2022 15:43, Julien Grall wrote:
>> You say future, has this option been merged or still in discussion on
>> the ML?
> 
> "future" as in "no released version yet". The change is present on the
> binutils master branch.

Thanks for the clarification. In which case, can you update the commit 
message like Andrew suggested. For both:

Acked-by: Julien Grall <jgrall@amazon.com>

Cheers,

-- 
Julien Grall

On 06/05/2022 14:46, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 06.05.2022 15:43, Julien Grall wrote:
>> You say future, has this option been merged or still in discussion on 
>> the ML?
> "future" as in "no released version yet". The change is present on the
> binutils master branch.

In which case, I'd recommend saying "build: suppress GNU ld warning
about RWX load segments" in the subject, and in the commit message
saying "warning present in master, anticipated to be included in release
2.$whatever".

That, combined with the date, is enough information for people to track
things down even if upstream binutils change their versioning scheme.

~Andrew

On 06/05/2022 15:18, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 06/05/2022 14:46, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 06.05.2022 15:43, Julien Grall wrote:
>>> You say future, has this option been merged or still in discussion on 
>>> the ML?
>> "future" as in "no released version yet". The change is present on the
>> binutils master branch.
> In which case, I'd recommend saying "build: suppress GNU ld warning
> about RWX load segments" in the subject, and in the commit message
> saying "warning present in master, anticipated to be included in release
> 2.$whatever".
>
> That, combined with the date, is enough information for people to track
> things down even if upstream binutils change their versioning scheme.

One other thing.  With something to ^ effect, both patches Acked-by:
Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>

~Andrew