From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Konstantin Boldyshev Subject: Re: linuxassembly.org - asmutils Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2005 23:20:53 +0400 Message-ID: <42CD8095.8000109@linuxassembly.org> References: <200506292204.j5TM4mLj024638@zeus2.kernel.org> <42CBC727.8060203@linuxassembly.org> <42CC3917.3020105@comcast.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <42CC3917.3020105@comcast.net> Sender: linux-assembly-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: "linux-assembly@vger.kernel.org" Frank Kotler ?????: > What's the story with http://asm.sourceforge.net ? Just a mirror, or > is there some difference? It's the original site. linuxassembly.org is a redirect, actually. >> Still hoping to release new asmutils.. > > Great! There are a couple bugs in 0.17... > > Makefile - insists on buggy 0.98 to build. Deleting the obvious > offending lines fixes it. (we apologize for 0.98.37 - elf output was > badly broken... but 0.98??? Jesus, it won't even assemble its own > "test" directory!) Oh, I guess now the latest 0.98.xx should work fine.. I will remove the check. > truss.asm - "pause" is an instruction nowadays. Speak to Intel, not > Nasm's fault. I fixed it by changing to "$pause" (two places, IIRC), > but any change would fix it... Thanks, fixed. > Several of the utilities segfault on 2.6.10+ (this was first brought > to my attention on 2.6.11, but the patch appears to have been applied > to 2.6.10 - still there in 2.6.12) This applies to those utilities > with the (only) code section set to "R X", but those with "RWX" still > work okay. I don't know if the proper fix is to make all code sections > writeable (last lines in Brian's "elf.inc") or to make sure every > program made this way has a "UDATASEG"... > > Call it a "kernel bug" if you like (I do), but I don't think it's > going to go away. Okay, I'll see how this can be solved. Still haven't tried any 2.6 kernel :-) > What are the security implications of making the code section > writeable? Is this a "safe" thing to do? From a glance, I do not see any point in doing this. However, perhaps study of linux-kernel archives may clarify why this was done. >> And still lacking time for this.. :( > > So many bits,so little time... :) Huge thanks to you and others > involved for what you've done. It's a *tremendous* help! Well, we're just having fun... when time permits :-) -- Regards, Konstantin.