[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <15577be70802081005t254c4ebcwc0dc9e5fe97eb975@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 19:05:48 +0100
From: "Abel Bernabeu" <abelbg@...rp.com>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Fwd: Elf loader crash while zero-filling .bss
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Abel Bernabeu <abelbg@...rp.com>
Date: 08-feb-2008 18:54
Subject: Re: Elf loader crash while zero-filling .bss
To: Andreas Schwab <schwab@...e.de>
2008/2/8, Andreas Schwab <schwab@...e.de>:
> "Abel Bernabeu" <abelbg@...rp.com> writes:
>
> > The offset of some sections fall in the middle of the .bss section. In
> > instance, look at the sections 12 (.comment) and 13 (.ARM.atributes).
> > Both sections are overlapping with 11 (.bss):
> >
> > [11] .bss NOBITS 0001143c 00143c 000048 0 WA 0 0 4
> > [12] .comment PROGBITS 00000000 00143c 000094 0 0 0 1
> > [13] .ARM.attributes SHT_LOPROC+3 00000000 0014d0 000010 0 0 0 1
> > [14] .shstrtab STRTAB 00000000 0014e0 00007b 0 0 0 1
> > [15] .symtab SYMTAB 00000000 001804 000c70 16 16 92 4
> > [16] .strtab STRTAB 00000000 002474 000840 0 0 0 1
> >
> > Is this fact meaningful??
>
> The fifth column is the file offset. Since the .bss section does not
> occupy any file space the other sections can be put directly behind it
> in the file.
>
The standar says literally that sections cannot overlap... but your
interpretation is rigth anyway.
I have a lot of binaries in my host Linux system with some section
overlapping with .bss wich are correctly loaded (so this should not be
the problem).
Well, let's follow searching...
I already tested the filesystem (in order to discard a flash corruption).
Yours, Abel.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists