From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Reply-To: From: "Joakim Tjernlund" To: "'Peter Bergner'" Cc: Subject: Re: TASK_UNMAPPED_BASE Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 18:10:52 +0100 Message-ID: <002c01c3ec0b$0240ea70$0a01a8c0@LUMENTIS02> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" In-Reply-To: <1075998857.2843.14.camel@otta.rchland.ibm.com> Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: > On Thu, 2004-02-05 at 02:57, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: > > Too low, does that mean TASK_UNMAPED_BASE < 0x00100000 will fail > > with huge bss's as well? Or will it just fail for 0x30000000 => > > TASK_UNMAPED_BASE <= 0x10000000? > > > > To me it seems like it is a good idea to change(at least in 2.6 > > where the bugs you mentioned has been fixed) TASK_UNMAPED_BASE to > > 0x00100000(or lower). > > The problem with a TASK_UNMAPPED_BASE that was "too low" was referring > to the bug where we always loaded ld.so at TASK_UNMAPPED_BASE even > though that adress was in the middle of the bss. Now that has been > fixed, "too low" isn't a concern anymore. OK, thanks. > However, I'm not sure moving the TASK_UNMAPPED_BASE below the text > section will work. It's used for more than just loading shared libs. > Anonymous mmap areas and the heap are all located relative to it. hmm, I have tried several values, for instance anything 0x2000 between (0x10000000-0x16000) appears to work. (0x10000000-0x15000) don't boot, but then I am on 2.4, so maybe it's the huge bss bug that bites me. > > Is there a way I can tell glibc to load it's libs around > > TASK_UNMAPED_BASE? Currently only ld.so follows TASK_UNMAPED_BASE, > > the other libs always loads at 0x0fxxxxxx. Glibc/ld.so version is > > 2.2.3 > > IIRC, only ppc32 loads it's libs this way. For example, ppc64 loads > all its libs above TASK_UNMAPPED_BASE. Well, I am ppc32. Jocke ** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/