On Jun 4, 4:14 am, Rainer Weikusat <rweiku...@mssgmbh.com> wrote:
Quentin Godfroy <quentin_godf...@hotmail.com> writes:
On Jun 3, 8:08 am, Rainer Weikusat <rweiku...@mssgmbh.com> wrote:
beginning of the loaded file (see TIS/ ELF, p 2-2). Since e_phoff is >>the offset of the program header from the beginning of the file, >>e_phoff + (p_vaddr - p_offset) is the location of the program header
No. This is a guess.
It is the required file format for SVR4 ELF executables on
Intel. Which happens to be the executable file format that is used on Linux, too. Even if this wasn't true, the kernel works the way it
works and your program modifies a working executable in a way that it
can no longer be executed. If is, of course, possible to modify the
ELF code in the kernel to work with QG-ELF, too, but why?
Because it adds a lot of generality to the cost of changing TEN lines
of code, and it makes the kernel respect the norm.
On Monday, June 4, 2007 at 1:46:29 PM UTC-4, Quentin Godfroy wrote:importantly conveniently illiterateness... it's appropriate that this fellow in the end was so damned arrogant he couldn't even hold himself to his pedantic and irritating standard. in another decade maybe someone else will get a laugh out of it and the
On Jun 4, 4:14 am, Rainer Weikusat <rweiku...@mssgmbh.com> wrote:
Quentin Godfroy <quentin_godf...@hotmail.com> writes:
On Jun 3, 8:08 am, Rainer Weikusat <rweiku...@mssgmbh.com> wrote:
beginning of the loaded file (see TIS/ ELF, p 2-2). Since e_phoff is >>the offset of the program header from the beginning of the file, >>e_phoff + (p_vaddr - p_offset) is the location of the program header
No. This is a guess.
It is the required file format for SVR4 ELF executables on
Intel. Which happens to be the executable file format that is used on Linux, too. Even if this wasn't true, the kernel works the way it
works and your program modifies a working executable in a way that it
can no longer be executed. If is, of course, possible to modify the
ELF code in the kernel to work with QG-ELF, too, but why?
Because it adds a lot of generality to the cost of changing TEN lines
of code, and it makes the kernel respect the norm.
bumping an old thread because godfroy seems quite reasonable and i just feel like possibly annoying that cranky bastard who insisted that the kernel is sacred or something.
christ coding in a kernel is abusing everything holy from time to time, you literally are writing the ticket... and you give him hell for what comes down to adherence to the spec? or rather his failure to adhere to your lazy, broken and more
personally i'm just probably mildly sadistic in certain ways and i'm really just enjoying the thought of this jackass blowing his top ten years after being a tremendous blowhard.
good day to you kind sir, as for the rest of you lot, i've a sentiment for you today but not that one. :D
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 380 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 52:52:55 |
Calls: | 8,144 |
Files: | 13,085 |
Messages: | 5,858,807 |