[llvm-dev] [iovisor-dev] [PATCH, BPF 1/5] BPF: Use a provisional ELF e_machine value

[Richard Henderson via llvm-dev]

On 06/15/2016 10:14 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 2:37 PM, Richard Henderson via iovisor-dev
> <iovisor-dev at lists.iovisor.org> wrote:
>> This same value for EM_BPF is being propagated to glibc,
>> elfutils, and binutils.
> 
> great!
> Can you share the link to glibc and the other patches?

https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2016-06/msg00212.html

https://lists.fedorahosted.org/archives/list/elfutils-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org/message/OEOF26ZHEJLHPOMRMOGDXTMYXUHPWVGA/

I haven't sent one yet for binutils.


>> +  EM_BPF           = 0xeb9f, // Linux kernel bpf virtual machine
> 
> was this id reserved this with whoever managing the numbers ?
> The only reason bpf backend used em_none is that we were couldn't
> figure out who's responsible for keeping these records.

No, it's an unofficial number.  But there's history for this.
In binutils there's a comment


/* If it is necessary to assign new unofficial EM_* values, please pick large
   random numbers (0x8523, 0xa7f2, etc.) to minimize the chances of collision
   with official or non-GNU unofficial values.

   NOTE: Do not just increment the most recent number by one.
   Somebody else somewhere will do exactly the same thing, and you
   will have a collision.  Instead, pick a random number.

   Normally, each entity or maintainer responsible for a machine with an
   unofficial e_machine number should eventually ask registry at sco.com for
   an officially blessed number to be added to the list above.  */


It used to take years to get sco to answer such emails.



r~