Re: [PATCH] stronger ELF sanity checks v2

[Pavel Machek]

Hi!

> > > On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 02:55:07AM +0100, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> > > > Here's the second version of my patch to add better sanity checks for
> > > > binfmt_elf
> > >
> > > I assume this breaks Brian Raiter's tiny ELF executables[1]. Even
> > > though these binaries are evil hacks that don't comply to standards
> > > and serve no serious purpose, I'm not sure what the purpose of the
> > > sanity checks is. Are there any risks associated with running
> > > non-compliant ELF executables? (Now that I mention it, the
> >
> > You get vy ugly behaviour. If you compile executable with huge static
> > data, it will compile okay, link okay, *launch okay* and die on
> > segfault. That's wrong, it should have died on -ENOMEM during exec.
> 
> Wouldn't that depend on the overcommit options?

I believe in this case data were so big they did not even fit in
address space...
								Pavel
-- 
When do you have a heart between your knees?
[Johanka's followup: and *two* hearts?]
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/