lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Feb]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [more markup]  [less markup]  [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateFri, 8 Feb 2008 19:05:48 +0100
From"Abel Bernabeu" <>
SubjectFwd: Elf loader crash while zero-filling .bss
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Abel Bernabeu <abelbg@m2grp.com>
Date: 08-feb-2008 18:54
Subject: Re: Elf loader crash while zero-filling .bss
To: Andreas Schwab <schwab@suse.de>
2008/2/8, Andreas Schwab <schwab@suse.de>:
> "Abel Bernabeu" <abelbg@m2grp.com> writes:
>
> > The offset of some sections fall in the middle of the .bss section. In
> > instance, look at the sections 12 (.comment) and 13 (.ARM.atributes).
> > Both sections are overlapping with 11 (.bss):> >> > [11] .bss                 NOBITS       0001143c 00143c 000048  0 WA     0   0  4
> > [12] .comment             PROGBITS     00000000 00143c 000094  0        0   0  1
> > [13] .ARM.attributes      SHT_LOPROC+3 00000000 0014d0 000010  0        0   0  1
> > [14] .shstrtab            STRTAB       00000000 0014e0 00007b  0        0   0  1
> > [15] .symtab              SYMTAB       00000000 001804 000c70 16       16  92  4
> > [16] .strtab              STRTAB       00000000 002474 000840  0        0   0  1
> >> > Is this fact meaningful??
>
> The fifth column is the file offset.  Since the .bss section does not
> occupy any file space the other sections can be put directly behind it
> in the file.
>

The standar says literally that sections cannot overlap... but your
interpretation is rigth anyway.

I have a lot of binaries in my host Linux system with some section
overlapping with .bss wich are correctly loaded (so this should not be
the problem).

Well, let's follow searching...

I already tested the filesystem (in order to discard a flash corruption).

Yours, Abel.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-02-08 19:11    [from the cache]
©2003-2008