> Thanks Andi -- I just tested open_exec() w/O_LARGEFILE on an
> i386 with a 2.5GB+ binary (mostly debuginfo), and it works as
> expected. Interesting to note that the test binary couldn't
> be compiled with i386 gcc, but it could be built with x86_64
> gcc -m32.
I guess the i386 binutils or gcc
Andi Kleen wrote:
Since Dave didn't post an updated patch. This is how I think what
the patch should be. I also changed sys_uselib just to be complete.
Thanks Andi -- I just tested open_exec() w/O_LARGEFILE on an
i386 with a 2.5GB+ binary (mostly debuginfo), and it works as
expected.
Since Dave didn't post an updated patch. This is how I think what
the patch should be. I also changed sys_uselib just to be complete.
Always use O_LARGEFILE for opening executables
This allows to use executables >2GB.
Based on a patch by Dave Anderson
Signed-off-by: Andi Kleen <[EMAIL
Since Dave didn't post an updated patch. This is how I think what
the patch should be. I also changed sys_uselib just to be complete.
Always use O_LARGEFILE for opening executables
This allows to use executables 2GB.
Based on a patch by Dave Anderson
Signed-off-by: Andi Kleen [EMAIL
Andi Kleen wrote:
Since Dave didn't post an updated patch. This is how I think what
the patch should be. I also changed sys_uselib just to be complete.
Thanks Andi -- I just tested open_exec() w/O_LARGEFILE on an
i386 with a 2.5GB+ binary (mostly debuginfo), and it works as
expected.
Thanks Andi -- I just tested open_exec() w/O_LARGEFILE on an
i386 with a 2.5GB+ binary (mostly debuginfo), and it works as
expected. Interesting to note that the test binary couldn't
be compiled with i386 gcc, but it could be built with x86_64
gcc -m32.
I guess the i386 binutils or gcc
Andi Kleen wrote:
I agree in theory. We've only seen instances on 64-bitters...
I think that's because gcc does not support the medium/large code models
for i386. Although in theory someone could create an executable with
a large enough .data.
-Andi
Or perhaps huge debuginfo section(s)?
> I agree in theory. We've only seen instances on 64-bitters...
I think that's because gcc does not support the medium/large code models
for i386. Although in theory someone could create an executable with
a large enough .data.
-Andi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
Andi Kleen wrote:
Dave Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
When a executable that is greater than 2GB in size is attempted on a 64-bit
system on a file system that calls, or uses generic_file_open() as its
open handler, it fails with an EOVERFLOW erro. This patch adds a call
to
Dave Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> When a executable that is greater than 2GB in size is attempted on a 64-bit
> system on a file system that calls, or uses generic_file_open() as its
> open handler, it fails with an EOVERFLOW erro. This patch adds a call
> to force_o_largefile() call
When a executable that is greater than 2GB in size is attempted on a 64-bit
system on a file system that calls, or uses generic_file_open() as its
open handler, it fails with an EOVERFLOW erro. This patch adds a call
to force_o_largefile() call in open_exec(), as done in sys_open() and
When a executable that is greater than 2GB in size is attempted on a 64-bit
system on a file system that calls, or uses generic_file_open() as its
open handler, it fails with an EOVERFLOW erro. This patch adds a call
to force_o_largefile() call in open_exec(), as done in sys_open() and
Dave Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
When a executable that is greater than 2GB in size is attempted on a 64-bit
system on a file system that calls, or uses generic_file_open() as its
open handler, it fails with an EOVERFLOW erro. This patch adds a call
to force_o_largefile() call in
Andi Kleen wrote:
I agree in theory. We've only seen instances on 64-bitters...
I think that's because gcc does not support the medium/large code models
for i386. Although in theory someone could create an executable with
a large enough .data.
-Andi
Or perhaps huge debuginfo section(s)?
I agree in theory. We've only seen instances on 64-bitters...
I think that's because gcc does not support the medium/large code models
for i386. Although in theory someone could create an executable with
a large enough .data.
-Andi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe
Andi Kleen wrote:
Dave Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
When a executable that is greater than 2GB in size is attempted on a 64-bit
system on a file system that calls, or uses generic_file_open() as its
open handler, it fails with an EOVERFLOW erro. This patch adds a call
to
16 matches
Mail list logo
