[Fwd: Re: ELF bugfixes]

[Fwd: Re: ELF bugfixes]

[phcoder]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 44 bytes --]


-- 

Regards
Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko

[-- Attachment #2: Re: ELF bugfixes.eml --]
[-- Type: message/rfc822, Size: 2597 bytes --]

From: phcoder <phcoder@gmail.com>
To: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: Re: ELF bugfixes
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 14:21:45 +0100
Message-ID: <49B90C69.60703@gmail.com>

David Miller wrote:
> From: phcoder <phcoder@gmail.com>
> Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 12:22:15 +0100
> 
>> David Miller wrote:
>>> From: phcoder <phcoder@gmail.com>
>>> Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 09:23:34 +0100
>>>
>>>> Index: include/grub/elf.h
>>>> ===================================================================
>>>> --- include/grub/elf.h	(revision 2036)
>>>> +++ include/grub/elf.h	(working copy)
>>>> @@ -77,7 +77,7 @@
>>>>    Elf32_Half	e_shentsize;		/* Section header table entry size */
>>>>    Elf32_Half	e_shnum;		/* Section header table entry count */
>>>>    Elf32_Half	e_shstrndx;		/* Section header string table index */
>>>> -} Elf32_Ehdr;
>>>> +} __attribute__ ((packed)) Elf32_Ehdr;
>>>>  
>>> There is no reason why you should need the packed attribute here.
>>> I can't think of any cpu where this could even remotely be necessary.
>>> And if it's not necessary, all it does it emit terribly suboptimal
>>> code on RISC cpus.
>> If it doesn't make a difference in the structure why does the compiler generate different code?
> 
> Because packed also means that the alignment of the structure
> can't be assumed to be naturally word aligned.  So the compiler
> has to use byte loads and stores to load a word, for example,
> on RISC machines.
> 
> This is because the packed attribute influences how the structure is
> embedded into other structures.
> 
> This attribute controls two different things, not just local packing.

I knew it but normally when you parse files normally offsets aren't 
guaranteed to be aligned. But now it seems that elf parser is written in 
a way to guarantee at least some alignments. Then this part of patch 
probably is to be dropped or changed to proper aligned attribute

-- 

Regards
Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko

[Fwd: Re: ELF bugfixes]

[phcoder]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 44 bytes --]


-- 

Regards
Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko

[-- Attachment #2: Re: ELF bugfixes.eml --]
[-- Type: message/rfc822, Size: 2155 bytes --]

From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
To: phcoder@gmail.com
Subject: Re: ELF bugfixes
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 13:53:14 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <20090313.135314.142627200.davem@davemloft.net>

From: phcoder <phcoder@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 21:49:39 +0100

> David Miller wrote:
> > From: phcoder <phcoder@gmail.com>
> > Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 21:41:42 +0100
> > 
> >> Actually our segment table is also our table for transforming
> >> between virtual and physical address. I don't see why entry point
> >> would be defined against virtual address of lowest physical segement
> > I would suggest simply looping over the phdrs and remembering
> > which one the e_entry falls into.
> > Won't that make things work in the case you're describing?
> > 
> I thought I have attached new patch. Sorry forgot to do so

This patch looks good to me, FWIW.