tech-userlevel archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: brandelf(1)

On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 08:33:47PM -0000, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> In article <>,
> Martin Husemann  <> wrote:
> >On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 12:28:51PM +0100, Manuel Bouyer wrote:
> >> Hello,
> >> so, to be able to run linux binaries with don't have the Linux type
> >> in its ELF header, I have ported FreeBSD's brandelf(1):
> >>
> >>     brandelf -- mark an ELF binary for a specific ABI
> >> 
> >> Should it go in base, or pkgsrc (or nowhere, it's not usefull enough) ?
> >> It's very small - a single C file of 216 lines (including comments), the
> >> binary is 9.1K.
> >
> >Since it is such a niche tool, I would add it to pkgsrc (but base doesn't
> >hurt much either).
> I think that if FreeBSD has it in base, we should too to avoid POLA and since
> it is small, it does not matter much. We want the OS's to behave similarly.

I disagree. Binaries without correct ABI markers are the far exception
on Linux, too. They are generally considered at least somewhat
questionable. You have to go out of your way to create them. So no,
there is no POLA here.


Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index