Re: [RFC, PATCH] Fixup COMPAT_VDSO to work withCONFIG_PARAVIRT

From: Jan Beulich
Date: Fri Mar 16 2007 - 04:07:51 EST


>>> Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xxxxxxxx> 16.03.07 06:10 >>>
>Zachary Amsden wrote:
>> Well testing that is not so fun. I installed SUSE Pro 9.0, and
>> strings on ld.so contains the magic at_sysinfo assert! But it doesn't
>> install TLS libraries, so I'll have to install them by hand.
>>
>> In works - in theory. Look, a puppy!
>>
>> Scratchbox is rumored to produce the fabled assertion even on modern
>> distros by installing its own toolchain which includes the dreaded glibc.
>
>I think Andi and Andrew have boxes which are afflicted.

I have one, too (which is one reasone why I created the original Xen patch).

>> I'm playing safe. Binary identical relocation to 0xffffe000 was my goal.
>
>Yeah, fair enough. But as Eric likes to keep pointing out, an
>executable ELF file need not have any sections at all, so the only safe
>course for anything "real" is via the section headers.

Program headers you mean.

>So I guess the right thing to do is relocate the dynamic stuff via
>PT_DYNAMIC, and relocate the symtab if its present.

Symtab should also be deduced from program headers.

I'm actually surprised this got re-implemented from scratch, when my patch
already had both variants (one just #ifdef-ed out), and was tested in both
forms (actually, I first implemented the ELF form, and only after seeing the
bloat it added to the sources I came up with the second variant, which in
the end unfortunately didn't add significantly less bloat to the Makefile.

Jan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/