Thomas Moestl wrote:
> On Tue, 2002/09/03 at 20:32:48 +0200, Thomas Moestl wrote:
> > On Tue, 2002/09/03 at 11:21:05 -0700, Matthew Dillon wrote:
> > >     I am also still somewhat worried about the data segment start address
> > >     and I am wondering if I should remove the if (data_addr == 0) 
> > >     and instead unconditionally set data_addr to the last data segment 
> > >     loaded (which is what the original code did).
> > 
> > That would only allow to shrink bss, but since that seems to be the
> > traditional behaviour (and it's not likely that anybody would like to
> > shrink away other segments), that would probably better.
> Huh, that should read data+bss for usual elf binaries which share the
> two in one segment (and there seems to be some code around in other
> places that expect binaries formed with only two PT_LOAD
> segments). Assuming that, setting data_addr conditionally or
> unconditionally should not make any difference, it will always be set
> for the first data PT_LOAD segment and there will be only one (the
> other one will be text).

It really doesn't matter all that much.  If a Silly User wants to chop off
parts of their segments, then let them!  They can achieve the same
functionality with munmap(2).  We shouldn't go too far out of our way to
prevent this on one subsystem when it is wide open elsewhere.

"All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars" - JMS/B5

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message

Reply via email to