Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 16 Jan 2004 22:36:46 +0100 | From | Pavel Machek <> | Subject | Re: [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/
| |