Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 11:16:25 +0200 From: Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> To: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@leidinger.net> Cc: Alexander Best <alexbestms@wwu.de>, Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org>, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [patch] extending/completing brandelf's OS knowledge Message-ID: <20100125091625.GJ3877@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> In-Reply-To: <20100125100129.92067vdtphv8owes@webmail.leidinger.net> References: <20100123133419.GI59590@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <permail-2010012314380880e26a0b00004e17-a_best01@message-id.uni-muenster.de> <20100123150817.GJ59590@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1001242127240.97671@qbhto.arg> <20100125100129.92067vdtphv8owes@webmail.leidinger.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--pWOmaDnDlrCGjNh4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 10:01:29AM +0100, Alexander Leidinger wrote: > Quoting Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> (from Sun, 24 Jan 2010 =20 > 21:29:42 -0800 (PST)): >=20 > >On Sat, 23 Jan 2010, Kostik Belousov wrote: > > > >>I do not see a need for such rudimentary ELF editor in the base at all. > > > >So, perhaps it's time to move brandelf out of the base? And if so, =20 > >perhaps Alexander's contribution could be incorporated into a port =20 > >for it? >=20 > Personally I do not see a reason why his work can not go into the base = =20 > system. From a feature point of view the patch is giving brandelf a =20 > little bit more freedom what it is allowed to change. When I look at =20 > what I do/did with various tools in FreeBSD which where not intended =20 > to be used like this but where useful in some cases, I do not think we = =20 > should enforce the policy to allow only stuff in brandelf which we are = =20 > able to emulate. >=20 > >>After the work of dchagin@/bz@, brandelf is needed only for the corner > >>cases, if at all. > > > >Hmm, I was fooling around with some linux'y stuff the other day and =20 > >needed to brandelf it (don't remember what, obviously wasn't that =20 > >important). :) > >If this happens again in the future, is it worth reporting =20 > >somewhere? (-emulation@ ?) >=20 > If it was to brandelf a static linux executable so that the FreeBSD =20 > system does not reboot when executing the static linux executable, =20 > then I would say it does not need to be reported and we still need =20 > brandelf in the base system. >=20 > If someone says that exactly this case has been fixed recently: it =20 > would be great to hear on emulation@ about cases where brandelf is =20 > still needed. If static linux binary contains .note.ABI-tag section, and I believe that relatively modern binaries do, then brand is autodetected. --pWOmaDnDlrCGjNh4 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAktdYWgACgkQC3+MBN1Mb4jTFgCfRcBg44IfIESGhJGRiVKqdQzO ceMAn3bOoWnk1HvIfXEA1/EgOez0chvR =O3wi -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --pWOmaDnDlrCGjNh4--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100125091625.GJ3877>