3 ms·
I don't remember exactly, but I believe I was related to Java, probably trying to debug some Java app with IntelliJ. I'm not 100% sure if the problem was due to
by sigotirandolas 6y ago
I don't remember exactly, but I believe I was related to Java, probably trying to debug some Java app with IntelliJ. I'm not 100% sure if the problem was due to some intrinsic LD_PRELOAD/libc limitation or something related to the tools I tried, but trying to find what the problem was with something so gigantic seemed impossible so I went the tun2socks way which is more transparent for applications.
(Also Go programs are famous for bypassing libc.)
- a-dub 6y agohmm. that's super weird. at the very least i would expect them to use the low level syscall wrappers in the libc. unless they're avoiding linking libc at all, it seems super weird to be making syscalls directly from application code. i mean, what are they doing? implementing the syscall gate by hand. why would anybody do that?
- a-dub 6y agoanyway the reason i bring it up is that i've been toying with the idea of lightweight ld_preload "containers" which patch the relevant syscalls to mount additional filesystem and network resources in a safe and extremely high performance manner by bypassing the kernel completely.
- a-dub 6y agoahh. i see now.. portability... i bet it would be possible to bypass/patch sysenter to achieve the same aim even if they're implementing their own syscall gates.
- natmaka 6y agoMaybe because the binary was statically linked. Go binaries are.