lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Jan]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] stronger ELF sanity checks v2
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.
>
> Wouldn't that depend on the overcommit options?

I believe in this case data were so big they did not even fit in
address space...
Pavel
--
When do you have a heart between your knees?
[Johanka's followup: and *two* hearts?]
-
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 14:00    [W:0.042 / U:0.612 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site