>+ for(; dyn->d_tag != DT_NULL; dyn++)
>+ switch(dyn->d_tag) {
>+ case DT_PLTGOT:
>+ case DT_HASH:
>+ case DT_STRTAB:
>+ case DT_SYMTAB:
>+ case DT_RELA:
>+ case DT_INIT:
>+ case DT_FINI:
>+ case DT_REL:
>+ case DT_DEBUG:
>+ case DT_JMPREL:
>+ case DT_VERSYM:
>+ case DT_VERDEF:
>+ case DT_VERNEED:
>+ case DT_ENCODING ... DT_HIOS:
>+ /* tags above DT_ENCODING are even if they're
>+ a pointer, so skip odd ones */
>+ if (dyn->d_tag >= DT_ENCODING &&
>+ (dyn->d_tag & 1) == 1)
>+ break;
>+
>+ dyn->d_un.d_ptr += VDSO_HIGH_BASE;
>+ }
I'm pretty certain the range OLD_DT_LOOS ... DT_LOOS must be excluded
here (the document version I'm looking at is inconsistent in itself here, saying
in one place to stop at DT_LOOS, in a second to stop at DT_HIOS, and in a
third to include DT_LOOS ... ST_HIOS - the inconsistency goes away if
assuming that the stop at DT_LOOS really means stop at OLD_DT_LOOS,
and the stop at DT_HIOS misses to special-case the OLD_DT_LOOS ...
DT_LOOS range.
Additionally I'm a little worried about excluding DT_ADDRRNGLO ...
DT_ADDRRNGHI in case future binutils ever start defaulting to generate
any of these (namely DT_GNU_HASH).
>+#define DT_ENCODING 32
Hmm, I was about to say this ought to be 31 when I realized the discrepancy
between document and binutils. I'll have to ask about this...
Jan
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
