inheriting exec-shield avoidance

[Mike McCormack]

Hi Peter,

Yeah, I'm aware of the problem with interitance... there might be a 
tricky way to fix it by setting WINELOADER to the name of a script that 
runs "wld $winebinary"... otherwise wine will need to be modified.

I just downloaded the source to setarch.  We may be able to incorporate 
it into wine-glibc.c ...

Mike

Peter Riocreux wrote:

> Built and tried this out.
> 
> First up, I get two instances of the following:
> 
> unknown header type 6474E551
> 
> It makes the first load work, - giving the same result as the setarch
> idea (I know (or at least I *think* I know) it is by a different
> means), but it doesn't solve the inheritance/forking problem. I assume
> that is what the patches you mention would do.
> 
> To make this a bit clearer, A creates children B then C. With setarch
> or wld when exec-shield is ON, A loads, but B doesn't. With
> exec-shield OFF, B loads, but C doesn't! I don't understand the
> latter at all.
> 
> In case it is relevant, I suspect that the child processes are created
> by a built-in scripting language engine.
> 
> Am open to trying out other things to get round the remaining part of
> this.
> 
> Peter