Re: [patch 1/2] Relocate VDSO ELF headers to match mapped locationwith COMPAT_VDSO

[Jeremy Fitzhardinge]

Jan Beulich wrote:
> While there's a certain level of control on what DT_* may appear in the
> vDSO, not even considering other than the above types seems fragile to
> me. Since future additions to the set are supposedly following a fixed
> scheme (distinguishing pointers and values via the low bit when below
> OLD_DT_LOOS, and using sub-ranges when between DT_HIOS and
> OLD_DT_HIOS), at least also handling those would seem like a good
> idea, as would warning about unrecognized types.
>   

I wasn't aware of this scheme.  Where is it documented?

> Also, even though it shouldn't matter for the final result, if doing things
> spec-conforming here you should use d_un.d_ptr.
>   

Yes, I've already fixed that.

> In addition to Roland's remarks about missing symbol table relocation, I
> would also assume section headers, if present, should be relocated.
>   

Yes, I suppose that's easy enough to add.

    J
-
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/