Re: Checking for ET_EXEC

[erich]

[whoops, forgot to copy it to the list...]


"Yoshinori K. Okuji" <address@hidden> wrote:

> At Thu, 13 Dec 2001 17:53:33 -0500,
> Rayiner Hashem wrote:
> > is equal to ET_EXEC. This isn't necessarily the best thing to do. It
> > is sometimes appropriate to build a kernel as a shared library (.so,
> > of type ET_DYN) as it makes kernel modules behave very similar to
> > regular userspace modules. You might want to consider removing the
> > test for ET_EXEC.
> 
> Then, what address does your kernel start at? Does a shared library
> get kicked to start with no program? It seems just horrible to me.

I do think Rayiner's point is legitimate in the sense that it gives
an easy way to do sharing with core kernel code and not linking to
a fixed address.

[Though, personally, I'm not a fan of the way shared libraries are
 implemented on most systems]

--
    Erich Stefan Boleyn     <address@hidden>     http://www.uruk.org/
"Reality is truly stranger than fiction; Probably why fiction is so popular"