[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: GNU/Linux binary compatibility (Was: Re: memory_object_lock_request
From: |
Wolfgang Jährling |
Subject: |
Re: GNU/Linux binary compatibility (Was: Re: memory_object_lock_request and memory_object_data_return fnord) |
Date: |
Mon, 25 Mar 2002 21:01:59 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.0.1i |
Jeroen Dekkers <jeroen@dekkers.cx> wrote:
> I doubt if binary compatibility with GNU/Linux is a good thing to
> have. It looks like we are then bound to the ABI and can't change it
> if we want to keep compatibility. There are also other problems, for
> example a program compiled on GNU/Linux could happily use PATH_MAX but
> that would cause a buffer overflow on GNU/Hurd. Also programs on
> GNU/Linux can use the /proc filesystem and can't on GNU/Hurd. There
> are probably more issues.
Exactly. A harmless construct like
#ifdef PATH_MAX
/* do something with PATH_MAX, any maybe use realpath() */
#else
/* the same thing with dynamic allocation and
canonicalize_file_name() */
#endif
might even introduce a security problem. Thus we would need to recompile
all programs anyway. I can't see the point of having binary
compatiblity then.
Cheers,
GNU/Wolfgang
--
Wolfgang Jährling <wolfgang@pro-linux.de> We're way ahead of you here.
Debian GNU/Linux user & Debian GNU/Hurd user The Hurd has always been on
Hurd Hacking: http://stdio.cjb.net/hhg.html the cutting edge of not
hurd.gnu.org | www.gnu.org | www.debian.org being good for anything.
[ "Accelerate you PC - with 9.81 m/s^2" ] -- Roland McGrath
- Re: memory_object_lock_request and memory_object_data_return fnord, (continued)
- Re: memory_object_lock_request and memory_object_data_return fnord, Thomas Bushnell, BSG, 2002/03/13
- Re: memory_object_lock_request and memory_object_data_return fnord, Neal H Walfield, 2002/03/13
- Re: memory_object_lock_request and memory_object_data_return fnord, Thomas Bushnell, BSG, 2002/03/13
- Re: memory_object_lock_request and memory_object_data_return fnord, Neal H Walfield, 2002/03/13
- Re: memory_object_lock_request and memory_object_data_return fnord, Roland McGrath, 2002/03/13
- Re: memory_object_lock_request and memory_object_data_return fnord, Neal H Walfield, 2002/03/23
- Re: memory_object_lock_request and memory_object_data_return fnord, Roland McGrath, 2002/03/24
- Re: memory_object_lock_request and memory_object_data_return fnord, Neal H Walfield, 2002/03/25
- Re: memory_object_lock_request and memory_object_data_return fnord, Roland McGrath, 2002/03/25
- GNU/Linux binary compatibility (Was: Re: memory_object_lock_request and memory_object_data_return fnord), Jeroen Dekkers, 2002/03/25
- Re: GNU/Linux binary compatibility (Was: Re: memory_object_lock_request and memory_object_data_return fnord),
Wolfgang Jährling <=
- Re: GNU/Linux binary compatibility (Was: Re: memory_object_lock_request and memory_object_data_return fnord), Jeff Bailey, 2002/03/25
- Re: GNU/Linux binary compatibility (Was: Re: memory_object_lock_request and memory_object_data_return fnord), Marcus Brinkmann, 2002/03/25
- Re: GNU/Linux binary compatibility (Was: Re: memory_object_lock_request and memory_object_data_return fnord), Oystein Viggen, 2002/03/25
- Re: GNU/Linux binary compatibility (Was: Re: memory_object_lock_request and memory_object_data_return fnord), Jeroen Dekkers, 2002/03/25
- Re: GNU/Linux binary compatibility (Was: Re: memory_object_lock_request and memory_object_data_return fnord), Farid Hajji, 2002/03/25
- Re: GNU/Linux binary compatibility (Was: Re: memory_object_lock_request and memory_object_data_return fnord), Jeroen Dekkers, 2002/03/25
- Re: GNU/Linux binary compatibility (Was: Re: memory_object_lock_request and memory_object_data_return fnord), Oystein Viggen, 2002/03/26
- Re: GNU/Linux binary compatibility (Was: Re: memory_object_lock_request and memory_object_data_return fnord), Jeroen Dekkers, 2002/03/26
- Re: memory_object_lock_request and memory_object_data_return fnord, Roland McGrath, 2002/03/25
- Re: memory_object_lock_request and memory_object_data_return fnord, Neal H Walfield, 2002/03/27