>+ for(; dyn->d_tag != DT_NULL; dyn++) >+ switch(dyn->d_tag) { >+ case DT_PLTGOT: >+ case DT_HASH: >+ case DT_STRTAB: >+ case DT_SYMTAB: >+ case DT_RELA: >+ case DT_INIT: >+ case DT_FINI: >+ case DT_REL: >+ case DT_DEBUG: >+ case DT_JMPREL: >+ case DT_VERSYM: >+ case DT_VERDEF: >+ case DT_VERNEED: >+ case DT_ENCODING ... DT_HIOS: >+ /* tags above DT_ENCODING are even if they're >+ a pointer, so skip odd ones */ >+ if (dyn->d_tag >= DT_ENCODING && >+ (dyn->d_tag & 1) == 1) >+ break; >+ >+ dyn->d_un.d_ptr += VDSO_HIGH_BASE; >+ }
I'm pretty certain the range OLD_DT_LOOS ... DT_LOOS must be excluded here (the document version I'm looking at is inconsistent in itself here, saying in one place to stop at DT_LOOS, in a second to stop at DT_HIOS, and in a third to include DT_LOOS ... ST_HIOS - the inconsistency goes away if assuming that the stop at DT_LOOS really means stop at OLD_DT_LOOS, and the stop at DT_HIOS misses to special-case the OLD_DT_LOOS ... DT_LOOS range. Additionally I'm a little worried about excluding DT_ADDRRNGLO ... DT_ADDRRNGHI in case future binutils ever start defaulting to generate any of these (namely DT_GNU_HASH). >+#define DT_ENCODING 32 Hmm, I was about to say this ought to be 31 when I realized the discrepancy between document and binutils. I'll have to ask about this... Jan - 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/