search for: pt_interp

...roach is based on the linux kernel file fs/binfmt_elf.c: # - read first few bytes and look for magic word plus 32/64 bit indicator # - read elf-header in 32 or 64 bit format, this tells where private # headers are. # - read the private headers (32 or 64 bit) # - the first private header with type PT_INTERP gives offset and # size of the interpreter filename in the executable # - extract that filename and strip trailing null byte. # use warnings; use strict; sub PATH_MAX () {4096;} sub SZ_ELF32HDR () {52;} sub SZ_ELF64HDR () {64;} # Elf32_Ehdr->e_ident[4]: are variables 32 or 64 bit sub ELFCLAS...

...0x0000000000000000 0x0000000000000000 RW 0x0 Section to Segment mapping: Segment Sections... 00 01 02 .text 03 Now obviously disk space is relatively cheap these days but if it could be avoided, can we avoid generating these unused memory mappings unless a PT_INTERP section is going to be generated? I could also be misunderstanding things, and it might be normal to map the program's program headers into memory (and thus the entire ELF header). Thanks.

...e final binary from host PC to AC100 and executed. > But the binary DIDN'T RUN. > > $./hello > > returns an error message below. > > bash: ./hello: No such file hello > You could try readelf -l hello and check the INTERP header. When I've seen this message usually PT_INTERP points to something that the kernel can't find. > I need to understand why it doesn't run on ARM laptop. > > I compiled another sample program hi.c on the ARM laptop and compared > both - the one cross compiled "hello" and the other self host compiled "hi"...

Hello, With your kind concern and help, I now can make a binary for ARM target. ./clang -v --save-temps -ccc-host-triple arm-none-linux-gnueabi --sysroot=/home/hum/Documents/Projects/arm_toolchain/arm-2010.09/arm-none-linux-gnueabi/libc -gcc-toolchain /home/hum/Documents/Projects/arm_toolchain/arm-2010.09 hello.c -o hello The build command is shown above. After that, I prepared an ARM laptop,

Has anyone ever come across general-purpose tools for modifying shared libraries? What I want to do is to edit the list of "needed" shared libraries to correct the common mistakes that developers make in creating shared objects with large lists of shared libraries. Specifically, I want to modify linux-flashplugin6/libflashplayer.so to remove all of the idiotic references to shared

...AP_ANONYMOUS and PROT_MTE (with the contents of the mappings filled from the file), as file-based mappings aren't necessarily backed by tag-capable memory. It also requires in-place remapping of data segments from the program image (as they're already mapped by the kernel before PT_INTERP invokes the loader). 4. Make .rodata protection optional. When read-only protection is in use, the .rodata section should be moved into a separate segment. For Bionic libc, the rodata section takes up 20% of its ALLOC | READ segment, and we'd like to be able to maintain page sha...

...MOUS and PROT_MTE (with the contents of the > mappings filled from the file), as file-based mappings aren't necessarily > backed by tag-capable memory. It also requires in-place remapping of data > segments from the program image (as they're already mapped by the kernel > before PT_INTERP invokes the loader). > > > > Make .rodata protection optional. When read-only protection is in use, > the .rodata section should be moved into a separate segment. For Bionic > libc, the rodata section takes up 20% of its ALLOC | READ segment, and we'd > like to be able to m...

...are mapped MAP_ANONYMOUS and PROT_MTE (with the contents of the mappings filled from the file), as file-based mappings aren't necessarily backed by tag-capable memory. It also requires in-place remapping of data segments from the program image (as they're already mapped by the kernel before PT_INTERP invokes the loader). >>> > >>> > Make .rodata protection optional. When read-only protection is in use, the .rodata section should be moved into a separate segment. For Bionic libc, the rodata section takes up 20% of its ALLOC | READ segment, and we'd like to be able to...

...; > mappings filled from the file), as file-based mappings aren't > necessarily > > backed by tag-capable memory. It also requires in-place remapping of > data > > segments from the program image (as they're already mapped by the > kernel > > before PT_INTERP invokes the loader). > > copying file data is a bit ugly but i think this is ok. > > > 4. > > > > Make .rodata protection optional. When read-only protection is in use, > > the .rodata section should be moved into a separate segment. For > Bionic > &g...

.... >> But the binary DIDN'T RUN. >> >> $./hello >> >> returns an error message below. >> >> bash: ./hello: No such file hello >> >> > You could try readelf -l hello and check the INTERP header. When I've > seen this message usually PT_INTERP points to something that the kernel > can't find. > > > > I need to understand why it doesn't run on ARM laptop. >> >> I compiled another sample program hi.c on the ARM laptop and compared >> both - the one cross compiled "hello" and the other sel...

Hello everyone, 9.0.0-rc2 was tagged yesterday from the release_90 branch at r368683. In the Git monorepo it's available as the llvmorg-9.0.0-rc2 tag. Source code and docs are available at https://prereleases.llvm.org/9.0.0/#rc2 Binaries will be added as they become available. The tag went in roughly one week behind schedule (see "Upcoming Releases" at https://llvm.org), but

Hi everyone, 9.0.0-rc1 was just tagged from the release_90 branch at r367217 (tagged as llvmorg-9.0.0-rc1 in the Git monorepo). Source code and docs are available at https://prereleases.llvm.org/9.0.0/#rc1 Binaries will be added as they become available. Please file bug reports for any issues you find as blockers of https://llvm.org/PR42474 Release testers: please start your engines, run the

Hello everyone, 9.0.0-rc5 was just tagged from the release_90 branch at r371837. In the Git monorepo, it's tagged as llvmorg-9.0.0-rc5. Source code and docs are available at https://prereleases.llvm.org/9.0.0/#rc5 Binaries will be added as they become available. There is only a single change from rc4 to rc5. Once more, the hope is that this will be the last release candidate and that we can

Hi, I've just tagged LLVM 9.0.1-rc3. Testers can begin testing and uploading binaries. This will be the last release candidate unless there is a major problem. I'm planning to tag the final release on Dec 19. -Tom

Hello again, 9.0.0-rc4 was just tagged from the release_90 branch at r371490. In the Git monorepo, it's tagged as llvmorg-9.0.0-rc4. Source code and docs are available at https://prereleases.llvm.org/9.0.0/#rc4 Binaries will be added as they become available. There are not a lot of changes from rc3 to rc4, and there are again no open release blockers, so I'm hoping this will be the last

Hi, I've tagged the LLVM 9.0.1-rc1 release. Testers can begin testing and upload binaries. I've also updated the test-release.sh script to pull from GitHub instead of SVN, if you run into any issues with the new script, let me know. -Tom

Hi, I've just tagged the 9.0.1-final release. Testers can begin uploading binaries. -Tom

Hello everyone, 9.0.0-rc3 was tagged today from the release_90 branch at r370450. In the Git monorepo, it's tagged as llvmorg-9.0.0-rc3. Source code and docs are available at https://prereleases.llvm.org/9.0.0/#rc3 Binaries will be added as they become available. There are currently no open release blockers, which means if nothing new comes up, the final release could ship soon and this is

Hi, I've tagged LLVM 9.0.1-rc2. Testers can begin testing and uploading binaries. If all goes well, this will be the last -rc. -Tom

Hello everyone, 9.0.0-rc6 was just tagged from the release_90 branch at r372100. In the Git monorepo, it's tagged as llvmorg-9.0.0-rc6. Source code and docs are available at https://prereleases.llvm.org/9.0.0/#rc6 This is the same as rc5 plus one very minor change (r371969) that still seemed good to pick up. I'm not allocating extra time for testing this one, expecting to tag