On Wed, 24 Jul 2002, Carsten Langgaard wrote:
> We at MIPS are in the process of making an ABI spec for all this, which
> is the intention that should be used by the tool-vendors. So please
> don't change the ELF header defines.
It'd be better the spec matched the real world...
> I don't see that is wrong with checking the ISA level, I rather have an
> error telling me that I can't execute a certain ISA level than
> eventually getting a reserved instruction or something worse like
> something unpredictable.
Well, -ENOEXEC in not any more useful than SIGILL -- with the latter you
have at least an idea what happened. The ISA check is not implemented for
any Linux port, so there no suitable hook in binfmt_*.c files. You might
propose an implementation if that's particularly important for you.
> You are obviously right about the elf_check_arch in the 64-bit part of
> the kernel is broken. It's probably just be copied from the 32-bit part
> without changes, like a lot of the code in the 64-bit kernel is.
Possibly, but it still makes me wonder why it wasn't adjusted at the time
binfmt_elf32.c was created...
Maciej
--
+ Maciej W. Rozycki, Technical University of Gdansk, Poland +
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
+ e-mail: macro@ds2.pg.gda.pl, PGP key available +
|