[lkml]   [2004]   [Jan]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] stronger ELF sanity checks v2
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
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:00    [W:0.051 / U:0.932 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site