From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265105AbUAONNY (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Jan 2004 08:13:24 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265101AbUAONNY (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Jan 2004 08:13:24 -0500 Received: from mail3-126.ewetel.de ([212.6.122.126]:52632 "EHLO mail3.ewetel.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S266677AbUAONNJ (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Jan 2004 08:13:09 -0500 To: Ulrich Drepper Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] stronger ELF sanity checks v2 In-Reply-To: <1eaqw-6Dk-29@gated-at.bofh.it> References: <1dmam-2Xk-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <1dAQW-109-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <1dCSg-5vk-55@gated-at.bofh.it> <1eaqw-6Dk-29@gated-at.bofh.it> Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 14:13:00 +0100 Message-Id: From: Pascal Schmidt X-CheckCompat: OK Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 08:50:12 +0100, you wrote in linux.kernel: > ld.so performs itself some tests, supplementing the tests in the kernel. > This is enough to catch ill-formed programs which might cause problems. Not everybody is using glibc, ld.so implementations vary and it's probable that not all do really check much. I agree that the kernel should only check values that it really uses, though. The other checks could be optional (CONFIG_WHATEVER) and/or only lead to debugging messages if they fail. -- Ciao, Pascal