Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 22:43:33 -0800 From: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@cup.hp.com> To: bmah@FreeBSD.ORG Cc: janb@cs.utep.edu, dmaddox@sc.rr.com, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Other Linux stuff... Message-ID: <3A24A595.9DFD3FAA@cup.hp.com> References: <Pine.GSO.4.30.0011281820460.24388-100000@gecko> <3A246C02.8963917F@cup.hp.com> <200011290513.eAT5DDI63288@bmah-freebsd-0.cisco.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"Bruce A. Mah" wrote: > > If memory serves me right, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: > > > So, from a pure > > ELF layout point of view, both shared objects and executables are the > > same. But a shared library is not guaranteed to be executable. Allowing > > shared objects to be executed is in violation with the specs: > > This may be a really stupid question, but what on Earth do they gain by > allowing the execution of shared object files? The only gain I see, if you can call it a gain, is that you can get non-trivial information out of a shared object from within scripts, but I don't know if this has been the reason. If you don't allow execution of shared objects, you have to use dlopen(3) and call some functions or query some variables. -- Marcel Moolenaar mail: marcel@cup.hp.com / marcel@FreeBSD.org tel: (408) 447-4222 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3A24A595.9DFD3FAA>