Re: RFC: bug in load_elf_binary?

2007-09-14 Thread Jeremy Fitzhardinge
Chris Friesen wrote: > I believe that's correct. It's basically the equivalent of BSS, but > used for an emulated OS (the app in question is an emulator). Right. >> Well, you could make the p_offset the same as the first segment with a >> non-zero filesz. That should satisfy the elf loader,

Re: RFC: bug in load_elf_binary?

2007-09-14 Thread Jeremy Fitzhardinge
Chris Friesen wrote: I believe that's correct. It's basically the equivalent of BSS, but used for an emulated OS (the app in question is an emulator). Right. Well, you could make the p_offset the same as the first segment with a non-zero filesz. That should satisfy the elf loader, though

Re: RFC: bug in load_elf_binary?

2007-09-13 Thread Chris Friesen
Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: Chris Friesen wrote: The elf spec says that PT_LOAD segments must be ordered by vaddr. We want to have a segment at a relatively low fixed vaddr. The exact address is not important, except that it's lower than the standard elf headers and so it must be the first

Re: RFC: bug in load_elf_binary?

2007-09-13 Thread Jeremy Fitzhardinge
Chris Friesen wrote: > The elf spec says that PT_LOAD segments must be ordered by vaddr. We > want to have a segment at a relatively low fixed vaddr. The exact > address is not important, except that it's lower than the standard elf > headers and so it must be the first segment in the elf file.

Re: RFC: bug in load_elf_binary?

2007-09-13 Thread Jeremy Fitzhardinge
Chris Friesen wrote: The elf spec says that PT_LOAD segments must be ordered by vaddr. We want to have a segment at a relatively low fixed vaddr. The exact address is not important, except that it's lower than the standard elf headers and so it must be the first segment in the elf file. So

Re: RFC: bug in load_elf_binary?

2007-09-13 Thread Chris Friesen
Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: Chris Friesen wrote: The elf spec says that PT_LOAD segments must be ordered by vaddr. We want to have a segment at a relatively low fixed vaddr. The exact address is not important, except that it's lower than the standard elf headers and so it must be the first

RFC: bug in load_elf_binary?

2007-09-12 Thread Chris Friesen
No responses in a couple days so I'm resending. I've CC'd a few people who've touched binfmt_elf.c recently. We've got an unusual elf binary and we seem to be running into a bug in the elf loader. I'm not an elf expert, so my apologies if I get the terminology wrong. The elf spec says

RFC: bug in load_elf_binary?

2007-09-12 Thread Chris Friesen
No responses in a couple days so I'm resending. I've CC'd a few people who've touched binfmt_elf.c recently. We've got an unusual elf binary and we seem to be running into a bug in the elf loader. I'm not an elf expert, so my apologies if I get the terminology wrong. The elf spec says