Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 14 Aug 2014 11:52:57 +0300
From:      Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>
To:        Phil Shafer <phil@juniper.net>
Cc:        arch@freebsd.org, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, marcel@freebsd.org, John-Mark Gurney <jmg@funkthat.com>, "Simon J. Gerraty" <sjg@juniper.net>
Subject:   Re: XML Output: libxo - provide single API to output TXT, XML, JSON and HTML
Message-ID:  <20140814085257.GN2737@kib.kiev.ua>
In-Reply-To: <201408140606.s7E66XXA091972@idle.juniper.net>
References:  <20140814052648.GM2737@kib.kiev.ua> <201408140606.s7E66XXA091972@idle.juniper.net>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

--aSnC4ZPPfhCvD8sN
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 02:06:33AM -0400, Phil Shafer wrote:
> Konstantin Belousov writes:
> >Yes, the notes are used to communicate the information required by
> >the dynamic linker to correctly activate the image. The mechanism has
> >nothing to do with application-specific features, and overloading it for
> >that purpose is severe and pointless layering violation.
>=20
> The ELF spec says:
>=20
>     Note Section
>=20
>     Sometimes a vendor or system builder needs to mark an object
>     file with special information that other programs will check
>     for conformance, compatibility, etc. Sections of type SHT_NOTE
>     and program header elements of type PT_NOTE can be used for
>     this purpose. The note information in sections and program
>     header elements holds any number of entries, each of which is
>     an array of 4-byte words in the format of the target processor.
>     Labels appear below to help explain note information organization,
>     but they are not part of the specification.
ELF standard scope is about build toolchain and C runtime, where the
cited paragraph makes perfect sense.

>=20
> Marking the binary with a libxo-specific note tells the caller that
> the binary is capable of rendering its output in a non-traditional
> style and gives the caller a means of triggering those styles of
> output.  In the libxo-enabled world, I see this as vital information
> the caller needs to initialize the environment in which the command
> will be run.  Isn't this exactly the sort of information ELF targets
> for note sections?

How binary format has any relevance for an application level feature ?
What would you do with the binaries which permissions are 'r-s--x--x',
which is not unexpected for the tools which gather system information
and have to access things like /dev/mem ?

You removed and did not answered a crusial question, which is a litmus
test for your proposal.  Namely, how presence of the proposed note in
the binary is different from DT_NEEDED tag for your library ?

Definitely, I do not see an addition of the fashion-of-the-day
text-mangling output shattering enough to justify imposing the
architecture violation.

--aSnC4ZPPfhCvD8sN
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
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=ANxL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--aSnC4ZPPfhCvD8sN--



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20140814085257.GN2737>