llvm dev - Jun 2016 - [iovisor-dev] [PATCH, BPF 1/5] BPF: Use a provisional ELF e_machine value

On 06/16/2016 06:57 PM, Richard Henderson via iovisor-dev
wrote:
> On 06/15/2016 10:14 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 2:37 PM, Richard Henderson via iovisor-dev
>> <iovisor-dev at lists.iovisor.org> wrote:
>>> This same value for EM_BPF is being propagated to glibc,
>>> elfutils, and binutils.
>>
>> great!
>> Can you share the link to glibc and the other patches?
>
> https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2016-06/msg00212.html
>
> https://lists.fedorahosted.org/archives/list/elfutils-devel at
lists.fedorahosted.org/message/OEOF26ZHEJLHPOMRMOGDXTMYXUHPWVGA/
>
> I haven't sent one yet for binutils.
>
>>> +  EM_BPF           = 0xeb9f, // Linux kernel bpf virtual machine
Great, can that be assumed the final magic e_machine number for the ELF
header that eBPF loaders can check for as well then (I do like 0xeb9f ;))?
>> was this id reserved this with whoever managing the numbers ?
>> The only reason bpf backend used em_none is that we were couldn't
>> figure out who's responsible for keeping these records.
>
> No, it's an unofficial number.  But there's history for this.
> In binutils there's a comment
>
>
> /* If it is necessary to assign new unofficial EM_* values, please pick
large
>     random numbers (0x8523, 0xa7f2, etc.) to minimize the chances of
collision
>     with official or non-GNU unofficial values.
>
>     NOTE: Do not just increment the most recent number by one.
>     Somebody else somewhere will do exactly the same thing, and you
>     will have a collision.  Instead, pick a random number.
>
>     Normally, each entity or maintainer responsible for a machine with an
>     unofficial e_machine number should eventually ask registry at sco.com
for
>     an officially blessed number to be added to the list above.  */
>
>
> It used to take years to get sco to answer such emails.
>
>
>
> r~
> _______________________________________________
> iovisor-dev mailing list
> iovisor-dev at lists.iovisor.org
> https://lists.iovisor.org/mailman/listinfo/iovisor-dev
>

On 06/16/2016 12:55 PM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>>>> +  EM_BPF           = 0xeb9f, // Linux kernel bpf virtual
machine
> 
> Great, can that be assumed the final magic e_machine number for the ELF
> header that eBPF loaders can check for as well then (I do like 0xeb9f ;))?
I'm quite fond of 0xeb9f myself.  ;-)

I have sent a message to both registry at sco.com and registry at uxsglobal.com.
We'll see if that produces a response within a reasonable time frame. 
Failing
that, I'm tempted to just use 0xeb9f forever.


r~

On 06/16/2016 10:59 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 06/16/2016 12:55 PM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>>>>> +  EM_BPF           = 0xeb9f, // Linux kernel bpf virtual
machine
>>
>> Great, can that be assumed the final magic e_machine number for the ELF
>> header that eBPF loaders can check for as well then (I do like 0xeb9f
;))?
>
> I'm quite fond of 0xeb9f myself.  ;-)
>
> I have sent a message to both registry at sco.com and registry at
uxsglobal.com.
> We'll see if that produces a response within a reasonable time frame. 
Failing
> that, I'm tempted to just use 0xeb9f forever.
Yeah, sounds good!