Subject: Re: execing gzipped files (was Re: Netpliance Iopener booted with NetBSD...)
To: Greywolf <email@example.com>
From: Andrew Brown <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 03/25/2000 13:21:55
># > [W]hile there's no reason that *all* architectures shouldn't benefit
># > from this neat hack, it does require putting gzip in the kernel.
># That was my first thought too.
># Now I'm not so sure. Couldn't ld.so or ld.elf_so or whatever it's
># called these days handle forking gunzip? Or Am I Missing Something
>The problem lies in that most of the executables compiled for the miniroot
>And even if ld.so or whatever did that, that's still kind of a lose:
>What if gunzip is gzipped? :-)
nah...it's more fundamental than that. if you gzip a binary, the part
of it that identifies it as "shared" is also gzipped. the kernel
would have to *at least* gunzip that, and if it's gonna go that far,
it might as well gunzip the rest. on demand.
>I think the guts of gunzip need to be built into the exec module, callable
>from the exec module or built in to ld.so*.
i'd expect a "options EXEC_GZIP" bit, but freebsd has it as
"pseudo-device gzip". then again...what do i know? :)
hmm...and it would also be "neat" if it (the program) could get
gunzip'ed and *then* passed off to an interpreter...or some emulation
(eg, linux, a.out, etc).
(...wondering about having gzip'ed perl scripts that call a gzip'ed
linux binary of perl as the interpreter...just as an exercise... :)
|-----< "CODE WARRIOR" >-----|
email@example.com * "ah! i see you have the internet
firstname.lastname@example.org (Andrew Brown) that goes *ping*!"
email@example.com * "information is power -- share the wealth."