| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <49BC4DB6.9070403@zytor.com> Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2009 17:37:10 -0700 From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com> To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org> CC: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: Latest brk patchset Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: >> >> It really doesn't make much sense to me, and is more than a bit >> confusing given the symbols. > > Mostly because I knew that the bss would get mapped into the appropriate > phdr segment correctly, but I wasn't sure that another bss-like section > would be. It will; in fact if they are adjacent then ld will typically merge the PHDRs. > Also because historically the brk segment was just an > extension of the executable's bss, and its more or less the same too. An extension of, yes, but not a part of. > Is there any real benefit in putting it into another section? Well, the semantics are different; the .bss section is zeroed while the brk isn't, and the brk symbols don't necessarily point to the data associated with those particular symbols, unlike (of course) the bss. It's not a big issue, obviously, it just seems cleaner to me that way. -hpa -- H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf. -- 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