[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/g/ - Technology


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: 1769381036688605.png (5 KB, 300x300)
5 KB
5 KB PNG
previous: >>108525108

#define __NR_uselib                134

https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/uselib.2.html

tl;dr:
dlopen, but as a syscall

bit of a weird one today. this syscall is basically nonexistent on modern platforms, but if you really wanted to, you could enable its compilation flag. honestly quite strange that this ever existed. i wonder if any of those anons who know a lot about the history of *nix systems might have anything to say about this one?

relevant resources:
man man

man syscalls

https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/
https://linux.die.net/man/
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/
https://elixir.bootlin.com/musl/
https://elixir.bootlin.com/glibc/
>>
>>108532493
Good Thread™ as usual, thank you anon. I'm honestly quite puzzled as well regarding the reasons for this syscall existing.
>>
bampu
>>
what if a static syscall to make a copy of the library so you can'td corrupt it, like it has it's own, CoW lib or something? like how you could do it if it made it's own and somehow a program calls it and overwrites the string functions, you'd still have yours



[Advertise on 4chan]

Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.