![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
> Do you need smaller than this? : ... > That's a 100% valid ELF executable, and the entire program is 91 bytes.. > Sure, it doesn't do much useful, and the ELF header and program header > table is huge overhead compared to the actual program, but that overhead > is minimal in any program that does any actual work. > > Also, I'm not planning to add anything that disallows anything the ELF > spec allows, so you can still pull funny tricks like have sections overlap > and in the above program put _start inside the unused padding bytes in > e_ident[EI_PAD] if you want.. still a valid program, and not something > that the checks I'm adding will prevent. > > It you want *really* tiny files then, as some have suggested, anothe > format could be used. > In my oppinion, if you claim to be an ELF executable, then you should be a > *valid* ELF executable.. If you are not a valid elf file but claim to be > so, then either something corrupted you or the tools that generated you > are buggy - and you should not be allowed to even attempt to execute - for > all the reasons I gave in my original mail. OK, if that 91 is OK, then no problem, I was thinking the minimum would be around 1-2 KB (now that I think about it, not really sure why I assumed that). I'm not mad enough to require/want shrinking from 90 to 45 bytes :) especially since most useful programs have a little more meat to them than the 80 bytes worth of header :) Cheers, MaZe - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 12:59 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||