From mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi Tue Jan 22 17:27:34 2008 X-Original-To: fnaumann@mail.boerde.de Delivered-To: fnaumann@mail.boerde.de Message-ID: <4730A7FD.1050204@utbm.fr> Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 18:44:29 +0100 From: Olivier Landemarre MIME-Version: 1.0 To: MiNT email list Subject: Re: [MiNT] Probably bad implementation in Pexec() References: <47306026.1040506@utbm.fr> <47308D49.70002@atari.org> In-Reply-To: <47308D49.70002@atari.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi Errors-To: mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi X-original-sender: olivier.landemarre@utbm.fr Precedence: bulk List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-Id: X-List-ID: List-subscribe: List-owner: List-post: X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at relay.boerde.de X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on relay.boerde.de X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.0 tagged_above=-50.5 required=7.0 tests=AWL, BAYES_00 X-Spam-Level: Status: X-Status: X-Keywords: Hello > > > Olivier Landemarre skrev: >> Hello >> >> I'm currently looking source code in Mint Pexec (k_exec.c), and for >> me there is a trouble in source code >> >> in >> >> exec_region() there is cpushi((void *) b->p_tbase, b->p_tlen); >> >> That is a good idea except it could be wrong or not enough in some >> cases. >> The case is AES (XaAES, MyAES, OAESIS and probably NAES) with the >> load of accessory (I think this is a bad implementation of load >> of accessory), they change b->p_tbase to put there own init code so >> when exec_region is used the cpushi is not on the code of >> accessory but only at is end (XaAES case) or anywhere. The cpushi() >> should probably done after load_region() and by security I think it >> should stay in exec_region() too. >> But probably the best should not have specific code for accessory, >> there is only mother basepage to fill NULL when exec() an accessory. >> >> >> I'm wrong? > > Well.. yes :) The kernel should not contain specific code to make > braindead AES implementations work. - So I think you have a bug in XaAES if I understand, your cpushi have no effect because kernel do it already but you have to do a cpushi on old tbase, because kernel can't do it - Kernel will be better if father basepage was put when code is loaded and not when it is executed (I think it work, not tested) > So in this respect, you are wrong, > there is nothing wrong with current Pexec(). The way the AES wants to > modify stuff is its own responsibility, and therefore must take care of > such things for itself. XaAES has code for this. And it does NOT belong > in the kernel. Mint Kernel not permit to have a very clean accessory implementation, thats all, and we make do-it-yourself, really not very good My point of view. Best regards Olivier