On Thursday 18 August 2005 00:27, Ruslan Nikolaev wrote: > I have a one question. GRUB requires have a kernel as an executable file > (at least for ELF). This is not very good from user point. For example user > can try to load such kernel at operating system and get something like > "Segmentation fault".
I don't understand what is wrong with this. It is normal to get an error when the user executes a binary file which is not supposed to run on an alien environment. > I think that having kernel as a non-executable file (for example ET_REL for > ELF) is better. However we need another "entry" point (special symbol). It > is possible to have something like "multiboot_start". ...And doesn't have > "_start" or "start" symbols in kernel at all. I don't agree. From the view of boot loaders, a kernel is truly an executable. So it is natural to use ET_EXEC. Applying ET_REL is very strange, because a kernel is not a relocatable object (who relocates the kernel?). Okuji _______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
