Messages in this thread | | | From | Jesse Pollard <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] stronger ELF sanity checks v2 | Date | Fri, 16 Jan 2004 13:55:23 -0600 |
| |
On Friday 16 January 2004 10:08, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > > On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 02:55:07AM +0100, Jesper Juhl wrote: > > > Here's the second version of my patch to add better sanity checks for > > > binfmt_elf > > > > I assume this breaks Brian Raiter's tiny ELF executables[1]. Even > > though these binaries are evil hacks that don't comply to standards > > and serve no serious purpose, I'm not sure what the purpose of the > > sanity checks is. Are there any risks associated with running > > non-compliant ELF executables? (Now that I mention it, the > > You get vy ugly behaviour. If you compile executable with huge static > data, it will compile okay, link okay, *launch okay* and die on > segfault. That's wrong, it should have died on -ENOMEM during exec. > Pave
Wouldn't that depend on the overcommit options?
With permitted overcommit - compile/link ok launch - segfault/-ENOMEM if heap/stack + static data UPDATES exceed system capacity Without overcommit: -ENOMEM if the heap/stack can't be initialized; as in even the first page of the heap/stack fails - and before actual launch completes, as the situation you describe.
If static data is just referenced, it should page in, and get dropped. - 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/
| |