Re: [MiNT] Probably bad implementation in Pexec()

[Olivier Landemarre <olivier.landemarre@utbm.fr>]

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