From: "Jay Carlson" <nop@nop.com>
To: <linux-mips@oss.sgi.com>, <linux-mips@fnet.fr>
Subject: kernel should not reject -mips2 ELF binaries
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 21:20:00 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <KEEOIBGCMINLAHMMNDJNEEDHCAAA.nop@nop.com> (raw)
include/asm-mips/elf.h contains a macro, elf_check_arch, that decides if an
executable is plausible to run under this kernel. It currently accepts
binaries flagged as MIPS1 ISA, and rejects all other ISAs.
#define elf_check_arch(hdr) \
({ \
int __res = 1; \
struct elfhdr *__h = (hdr); \
\
if ((__h->e_machine != EM_MIPS) && \
(__h->e_machine != EM_MIPS_RS4_BE)) \
__res = 0; \
if (__h->e_flags & EF_MIPS_ARCH) \
__res = 0; \
\
__res; \
})
I think we should make an exception for MIPS2. Turns out that the two Linux
VR processor families benefit from some of the MIPS II features; most
notably, code density is improved by eliminating load delay slots. If I
build executables that take advantage of this, they legitimately should be
flagged with E_MIPS_ARCH_2 (since they won't run on my decstation).
So what's the right way to fix this? Three things come to mind:
1) rip out the EF_MIPS_ARCH check from elf_check_arch.
2) compare the value with E_MIPS_ARCH_1 and E_MIPS_ARCH_2
3) figure out what the capabilities of the current processor are and reject
E_MIPS_ARCH2 on R2/3000s.
I'd just go do #3 except it looks like a bigger pain than it's worth. No
other linux kernel port goes to that amount of trouble, of course.
(I may do #1 or #2 in the Linux VR CVS as a stopgap.)
Jay
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Jay Carlson" <nop@nop.com>
To: linux-mips@oss.sgi.com, linux-mips@fnet.fr
Subject: kernel should not reject -mips2 ELF binaries
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 21:20:00 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <KEEOIBGCMINLAHMMNDJNEEDHCAAA.nop@nop.com> (raw)
Message-ID: <20001107022000.CP3t2FqO5zHA-PaaSabqfZoCrIeNNI8mI8wz7FaNPiM@z> (raw)
include/asm-mips/elf.h contains a macro, elf_check_arch, that decides if an
executable is plausible to run under this kernel. It currently accepts
binaries flagged as MIPS1 ISA, and rejects all other ISAs.
#define elf_check_arch(hdr) \
({ \
int __res = 1; \
struct elfhdr *__h = (hdr); \
\
if ((__h->e_machine != EM_MIPS) && \
(__h->e_machine != EM_MIPS_RS4_BE)) \
__res = 0; \
if (__h->e_flags & EF_MIPS_ARCH) \
__res = 0; \
\
__res; \
})
I think we should make an exception for MIPS2. Turns out that the two Linux
VR processor families benefit from some of the MIPS II features; most
notably, code density is improved by eliminating load delay slots. If I
build executables that take advantage of this, they legitimately should be
flagged with E_MIPS_ARCH_2 (since they won't run on my decstation).
So what's the right way to fix this? Three things come to mind:
1) rip out the EF_MIPS_ARCH check from elf_check_arch.
2) compare the value with E_MIPS_ARCH_1 and E_MIPS_ARCH_2
3) figure out what the capabilities of the current processor are and reject
E_MIPS_ARCH2 on R2/3000s.
I'd just go do #3 except it looks like a bigger pain than it's worth. No
other linux kernel port goes to that amount of trouble, of course.
(I may do #1 or #2 in the Linux VR CVS as a stopgap.)
Jay
next reply other threads:[~2000-11-07 2:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2000-11-07 2:20 Jay Carlson [this message]
2000-11-07 2:20 ` kernel should not reject -mips2 ELF binaries Jay Carlson
2000-11-07 2:28 ` Ralf Baechle
2000-11-07 3:00 ` Jay Carlson
2000-11-07 3:00 ` Jay Carlson
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=KEEOIBGCMINLAHMMNDJNEEDHCAAA.nop@nop.com \
--to=nop@nop.com \
--cc=linux-mips@fnet.fr \
--cc=linux-mips@oss.sgi.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.