On 01/04/2011 09:56 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>
>> I think it is a gross misconception to tie the ABI to the ELF class of
>> an object. Specifying the ABI should imo be done via e_flags or
>> one of the unused bytes of e_ident, and in all reality the ELF class
>> should *only* affect the file layout (and 64-bit should never have
>> forbidden to use 32-bit ELF containers; similarly 64-bit ELF objects
>> may have uses for 32-bit architectures/ABIs, e.g. when debug
>> information exceeds the 4G boundary).
>
> I agree with you in principle. But I think it should be done via
> a new attribute section, similar to ARM.
>
Oh god, please, no.
I have to say I'm highly questioning to Jan's statement in the first
place. Crossing 32- and 64-bit ELF like that sounds like a kernel
security hole waiting to happen.
-hpa
