From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge Subject: Re: [patch 1/2] Relocate VDSO ELF headers to match mapped location with COMPAT_VDSO Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 00:31:38 -0700 Message-ID: <4614A5DA.9050700@goop.org> References: <20070405045825.511024444@goop.org> <20070405045843.333498131@goop.org> <4614BD10.76E4.0078.0@novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4614BD10.76E4.0078.0@novell.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org To: Jan Beulich Cc: virtualization@lists.osdl.org, "Eric W. Biederman" , Andrew Morton , Ingo Molnar , lkml , Roland McGrath List-Id: virtualization@lists.linuxfoundation.org Jan Beulich wrote: > While there's a certain level of control on what DT_* may appear in the > vDSO, not even considering other than the above types seems fragile to > me. Since future additions to the set are supposedly following a fixed > scheme (distinguishing pointers and values via the low bit when below > OLD_DT_LOOS, and using sub-ranges when between DT_HIOS and > OLD_DT_HIOS), at least also handling those would seem like a good > idea, as would warning about unrecognized types. > = I wasn't aware of this scheme. Where is it documented? > Also, even though it shouldn't matter for the final result, if doing thin= gs > spec-conforming here you should use d_un.d_ptr. > = Yes, I've already fixed that. > In addition to Roland's remarks about missing symbol table relocation, I > would also assume section headers, if present, should be relocated. > = Yes, I suppose that's easy enough to add. J