| 1 |
On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 7:25 PM, <tuxic@××××××.de> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 07/19 06:57, Jorge Almeida wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 6:40 PM, <tuxic@××××××.de> wrote: |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
>> > |
| 6 |
>> > the tool is statically linked and only the command "file" |
| 7 |
>> > reveals its 32bit nature. |
| 8 |
>> > |
| 9 |
>> If the tool is a static binary, you shouldn't need anything besides a |
| 10 |
>> kernel with support for 32 bit executables (Executable file formats / |
| 11 |
>> Emulations ---> x32 ABI for 64-bit mode) |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Hi, |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> the linux32-trick is neat...but it seems a little more to be done |
| 18 |
> here. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> I straced the whole thing: |
| 21 |
> sudo strace linux32 ./pirate-loader_lnx |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Did you check that your kernel supports 32 bit executables? If so, |
| 24 |
what happens when you run "./pirate-loader_lnx"? And what about |
| 25 |
"strace ./pirate-loader_lnx"? The output of strace you listed shows |
| 26 |
that something is missing, but is it required by ./pirate-loader_lnx |
| 27 |
or just by linux32 itself? |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> Why does the task of flashing firmware walk hand in hand with mental illness so |
| 34 |
> near at the abyss of bricked hardware that often ? |
| 35 |
Crappy software made by professionals (alt.: smart-assed sw made by |
| 36 |
the vendor's underpaid, or overpaid, hirelings) |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
J.A. |
Archives