Re: TASK_UNMAPPED_BASE

On Thu, 2004-02-05 at 02:57, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:

quoted

Too low, does that mean TASK_UNMAPED_BASE < 0x00100000 will fail
with huge bss's as well? Or will it just fail for 0x30000000 =>
TASK_UNMAPED_BASE <= 0x10000000?

To me it seems like it is a good idea to change(at least in 2.6
where the bugs you mentioned has been fixed) TASK_UNMAPED_BASE to
0x00100000(or lower).

The problem with a TASK_UNMAPPED_BASE that was "too low" was referring
to the bug where we always loaded ld.so at TASK_UNMAPPED_BASE even
though that adress was in the middle of the bss. Now that has been
fixed, "too low" isn't a concern anymore.

OK, thanks.

However, I'm not sure moving the TASK_UNMAPPED_BASE below the text
section will work. It's used for more than just loading shared libs.
Anonymous mmap areas and the heap are all located relative to it.

hmm, I have tried several values, for instance anything 0x2000 between
(0x10000000-0x16000) appears to work. (0x10000000-0x15000) don't boot,
but then I am on 2.4, so maybe it's the huge bss bug that bites me.

quoted

Is there a way I can tell glibc to load it's libs around
TASK_UNMAPED_BASE? Currently only ld.so follows TASK_UNMAPED_BASE,
the other libs always loads at 0x0fxxxxxx. Glibc/ld.so version is
2.2.3

IIRC, only ppc32 loads it's libs this way. For example, ppc64 loads
all its libs above TASK_UNMAPPED_BASE.

Well, I am ppc32.

 Jocke

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/