Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 12:45:56 -0800 (PST) From: John Polstra <jdp@polstra.com> To: garyj@muc.de Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: brandelf (necessary?) Message-ID: <199903052045.MAA02016@vashon.polstra.com> In-Reply-To: <199903032249.XAA32433@peedub.muc.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In article <199903032249.XAA32433@peedub.muc.de>,
Gary Jennejohn <garyj@muc.de> wrote:
> Christoph Kukulies writes:
> >In an environment where FreeBSD needs to run linux binaries
> >that are shared with linux systems, would it do harm to brandelf
> >these binaries? Or in other words, would it be possible for FreeBSD
> >to autodetect that it's a linux ELF binary without having to brand it?
> >
>
> as long as the linuxulator is loaded (linux.ko) it does not seem to be
> necessary to brandelf Linux binaries. At least, that's been my experience.
If the executables are dynamically linked, the image loader can
normally guess their OS type based on the dynamic linker name that's
stored in the executable file. But for statically-linked programs, a
correct brand is necessary.
John
--
John Polstra jdp@polstra.com
John D. Polstra & Co., Inc. Seattle, Washington USA
"Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public."
-- H. L. Mencken
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199903052045.MAA02016>