On 06/16/2016 06:57 PM, Richard Henderson via iovisor-dev wrote:
On 06/15/2016 10:14 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 2:37 PM, Richard Henderson via iovisor-dev
<[email protected]> wrote:
This same value for EM_BPF is being propagated to glibc,
elfutils, and binutils.
great!
Can you share the link to glibc and the other patches?
https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2016-06/msg00212.html
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/OEOF26ZHEJLHPOMRMOGDXTMYXUHPWVGA/
I haven't sent one yet for binutils.
+ EM_BPF = 0xeb9f, // Linux kernel bpf virtual machine
Great, can that be assumed the final magic e_machine number for the ELF
header that eBPF loaders can check for as well then (I do like 0xeb9f ;))?
was this id reserved this with whoever managing the numbers ?
The only reason bpf backend used em_none is that we were couldn't
figure out who's responsible for keeping these records.
No, it's an unofficial number. But there's history for this.
In binutils there's a comment
/* If it is necessary to assign new unofficial EM_* values, please pick large
random numbers (0x8523, 0xa7f2, etc.) to minimize the chances of collision
with official or non-GNU unofficial values.
NOTE: Do not just increment the most recent number by one.
Somebody else somewhere will do exactly the same thing, and you
will have a collision. Instead, pick a random number.
Normally, each entity or maintainer responsible for a machine with an
unofficial e_machine number should eventually ask [email protected] for
an officially blessed number to be added to the list above. */
It used to take years to get sco to answer such emails.
r~
_______________________________________________
iovisor-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.iovisor.org/mailman/listinfo/iovisor-dev
_______________________________________________
iovisor-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.iovisor.org/mailman/listinfo/iovisor-dev
