On Wed, May 05, 2021 at 02:20:45PM -0900, Philip Guenther wrote: > IMHO, the benefit of adding this check is almost zero: it gives a slightly > better experience for a small set of possible data corruption cases, when > similar corruptions that affect other pages aren't helped at all as it'll > crash when it executes zeroed text, or accesses zeroed data, or fails to > find a required symbol because the symbol table was zeroed out. I agree that it only covers a small subset of all the countless corruptions and erroneous ld.so might take.
> If we want to protect against that sort of hardware lossage, then a > filesystem which does so is the way to go, not an alarm on one window of a > glass house. And yes, I'd like preventing corruption in the first place as well. But then again, having such mechanisms around seems very unlikely and a clean error message telling users *where* corruption took place still seems worth it; binutils having a similar check seems to support that. I sit on the fence here with no strong opinion (also in part because I barely scratched the surfce of ELF and ld.so so far), so unless someone else wants such a check/error message in ld.so I'll just drop the diff.
