From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jan 25 09:16:32 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77168106566C; Mon, 25 Jan 2010 09:16:32 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kostikbel@gmail.com) Received: from mail.zoral.com.ua (skuns.zoral.com.ua [91.193.166.194]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2332F8FC08; Mon, 25 Jan 2010 09:16:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua (root@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua [10.1.1.148]) by mail.zoral.com.ua (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id o0P9GPIK071611 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 25 Jan 2010 11:16:25 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from kostikbel@gmail.com) Received: from deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua (kostik@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o0P9GPc1017974; Mon, 25 Jan 2010 11:16:25 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from kostikbel@gmail.com) Received: (from kostik@localhost) by deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id o0P9GPK7017973; Mon, 25 Jan 2010 11:16:25 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from kostikbel@gmail.com) X-Authentication-Warning: deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua: kostik set sender to kostikbel@gmail.com using -f Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 11:16:25 +0200 From: Kostik Belousov To: Alexander Leidinger Message-ID: <20100125091625.GJ3877@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> References: <20100123133419.GI59590@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <20100123150817.GJ59590@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <20100125100129.92067vdtphv8owes@webmail.leidinger.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="pWOmaDnDlrCGjNh4" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100125100129.92067vdtphv8owes@webmail.leidinger.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.95.2 at skuns.kiev.zoral.com.ua X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.2.5 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on skuns.kiev.zoral.com.ua Cc: Alexander Best , Doug Barton , freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [patch] extending/completing brandelf's OS knowledge X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 09:16:32 -0000 --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 (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--