From: Ian P. <Ian...@cl...> - 2004-10-20 18:04:36
|
> > 4. Provide an alternative libc that does the +ve accesses (which are > libc private, afaik) in another segment. This does not break the > ABI for userland programs and -ve accesses aren't that bad when > there are no +ve accesses in the same segment. There'd be very little technical reason not to adopt this as the default libc. Unless this was likely to happen, we might be better off using simple dynamic binary rewriting to transform the standard libc into "+ve offsets use fs". The only down side is the pain that's involved in stopping the patched versions getting committed to disk by the pre-linker... Ian |