9 comments

  • qcoudeyr 2 hours ago
  • vparseval 9 hours ago
    Love it! It's entirely inapplicable and useless to me but it embodies the spirit of Show HN and what the spirit of programming in the 80s and 90s was.
  • anonymous67453 3 hours ago
    Dell 5440

        $ git clone https://github.com/meribold/btry
        ...
        $ make
        as -mx86-used-note=no btry.s -o btry.o
        objcopy -O binary btry.o btry
        chmod +x btry
    
        $ ./btry 
        Segmentation fault         ./btry
    
        $ strace -f ./btry 
        execve("./btry", ["./btry"], 0x7ffc1a562078 /* 57 vars */) = -1 ENOMEM (Cannot allocate memory)
    
        $ file btry
        btry: ELF 64-bit LSB executable, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), statically linked, corrupted section header size
    • meribold 3 hours ago
      Looks like I may have stretched what values are acceptable for p_filesz/p_memsz too far. What's your kernel version? (I tested it on 6.8.0 and 4.4.0.) Perhaps the 316-byte version at commit 451827cfd5399074 (before that particular hack was introduced) would work.
  • captn3m0 9 hours ago
    I have a use for this: A somewhat portable one-liner to go in my waybar/sway/i3 configs!
  • emanuele-em 2 days ago
    301 bytes! The base64 one-liner install is a nice flex. Accepting an infinite loop when energy_full doesn't exist is peak code golf, perfectly reasonable when every byte counts. Is there a writeup on the assembly somewhere?
    • zahlman 8 hours ago
      The xz step doesn't seem to be doing very much, though. It seems the decoded data is currently 278 bytes versus a 298-byte decompressed result.
    • sjdv1982 7 hours ago
      Haha this is great!

      What about adding a Make rule to auto-generate the one-liner install from the binary?

    • billforsternz 3 hours ago
      I would prefer avoiding the infinite loop and printing a message to help the user understand what went wrong. I'm sure you could do that with an extra 100 bytes or so. Just my opinion of course.
  • userbinator 7 hours ago
    It doesn't even look like particularly optimised Asm (could immediately spot a few savings, despite how horrible GAS syntax is to read...), but is definitely not "compiler slop"[1] either, which shows just how inefficient the majority of programs actually are. Of course even the ELF header takes up a significant amount of space, but this reminds me of how PC magazines would print short listings of utilities like this, often a few dozen up to a few hundred bytes at most --- in DOS .COM format, which is headerless and thus pure machine instructions.

    [1] In the late 80s and early 90s, the battle between those writing handwritten Asm and those using compiled HLLs has many similarities to AI-generated vs non-AI code today.

  • bregma 3 hours ago
    As always with these admirable hacks, I feel compelled to point out these are not really ELF executables but just small files you can trick the x86_64 Linux kernel into loading.

    I mean they're very clever and legit and kudos to the people who develop these exploits, but they're not ELF.

    • noam_k 3 hours ago
      Is it really not ELF? The file starts with the \x7FELF magic, but I'm not by my laptop to see what `file btry` outputs.
      • meribold 3 hours ago
        GP is likely referring to how fields in the ELF and program header are abused for instructions and data in a way that happens to not break things on Linux.
    • benj111 2 hours ago
      I'd agree it's not standards compliant. But if it's accepted as an ELF by Linux, in what way is it not an ELF?

      Or to flip it round. If Linux accepts something as an ELF that isn't, then it isn't an ELF loader.

      Would you describe a web browser that doesn't score 100% on a rendering test as not a browser?

  • Eric_Xua 8 hours ago
    Love this kind of tiny, over‑engineered hack—totally impractical, but pure Show HN energy.
  • darioterror 9 hours ago
    [dead]