At 07:15 AM 2/21/98 -0500, der Mouse wrote:
>I've been deleting sokolov's messages almost reflexively, but this is
>so off-base I'm afraid someone else might be misled by it.

I wonder if he knows what "*plonk*" means?

>>> Eh, the kernel has nothing to do with shared libraries.
>> Really?
>
>Really.
>
>> Let's say someone calls execve(2) on an executable that requires some
>> shared libs.  The kernel will pull in the executable itself, but it
>> also needs to pull in the shared libs, right?
>
>Wrong.  Or more precisely, yes, the kernel is involved, but only in the
>sense that the kernel is involved in any I/O done by a user process;
>when the kernel brings in a shared library, it doesn't know that it's a
>shared library, all it knows is that userland asked to read (or mmap or
>mprotect or whatever) that file (or region of memory or whatever).

All of this is clearly demonstrated when you ktrace/kdump a process that
uses shared libraries.

It's educational to read through the dump, but it gets a bit tedious when
you are actually looking for another piece of code. "Oh well". 
--
XCOMM Kevin P. Neal, Junior, Comp. Sci.     -   House of Retrocomputing
XCOMM  mailto:kpneal@pobox.com              -   http://www.pobox.com/~kpn/
XCOMM  kpneal@eos.ncsu.edu              Spoken by Keir Finlow-Bates:
XCOMM "Good grief, I've just noticed I've typed in a rant. Sorry chaps!"