Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 04 May 1999 10:16:57 -0700 (PDT) | From | Jeremy Fitzhardinge <> | Subject | Re: Capabilities: ALPHA time |
| |
On 04-May-99 Pavel Machek wrote: > Well, I'm still not sure your patch is better. I've seen it and it is > much more complicated. _If_ we want to support multiple different CAPS > notes with different versions simultaneously, _then_ your patch is the > way to go.I'm just not sure having multiple CAPS notes is good idea: > it makes kernel code more complicated, it is hard to imagine interface > to manipulate such multiple capabilities, and I do not think it is > neccessary at all. [You want single capabilities per executable, not > arbitrary number of capabilities. The later is too hard to use for > use and unneccessary, IMO.]
You miss my point.
Notes are a generic mechanism, and there could be notes in an executable for reasons other than capabilties. You can't rely on the CAPS note being first because something might put another note before it. Those other notes may be something associated with CAPS, like a digital signature. Your technique would immediately break as soon as someone tries to do something else with ELF notes.
The reason I made "addnote" very generic (even to the generic name) is that there's a real possibility that notes in an executable will be more generally useful, and I wanted to make sure the tools were available for doing it properly. For the same reason, the kernel code which parses the ELF notes should conform to the spec, rather than some half-assed hack. The code to do it properly is a little longer, but its not conceptually more complex and has negligable performance impact.
I would consider changing so that it would only load and parse, say, 4k of the notes segment at most.
J
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |