On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 10:35:42AM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> 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.
Yeah, and there are other targets where the elf class determines ABI
too (e.g. EM_S390 is used for both 31-bit and 64-bit binaries and
the ELF class determines which).
Jakub
