Talk:binfmt_misc

/proc interface

While canonically, the binfmt_misc filesystem is mounted in a subdirectory of an already-mounted /proc directory, binfmt_misc is (by itself) its own virtual filesystem (this is true for at least linux-2.6.21 and I’m sure for quite awhile prior). Thus, the sentence that states “The executable formats are registered through a /proc file system interface.” is misleading. I will change it to say “The executable formats are registered through a virtual file system interface (similar to /proc).” If someone objects or the implementation changes, feel free to change it back. --76.189.96.157 02:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Examples

The examples have been removed on the basis that WP is not a manual, and that they are unclear.

Firstly, binfmt_misc doesn't have a manpage. It's documented in the kernel source (/usr/src/linux/Documentation/binfmt_misc.txt on my box). On many systems which use binary packages, this would not be installed (e.g., Ubuntu, Fedora, Suse, Mandrake).

Secondly, documenting the format here (":name:type:offset:magic:mask:interpreter:"), but excluding examples, seems like a double-standard. The format is certainly "manual" material.

Lastly, the examples are perfectly clear: they are real-world applications of the format mentioned in the article. If one follows any of the examples, the results are as advertised. Why shouldn't they be included, since they are useful to illustrate the format? They are not a step-by-step guide to binfmt_misc, or a walk-through, or what-have-you, they are simply applications of the format previously described.

So what gives here? Why exclude the examples? 64.234.1.144 03:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Example content for illustrative purposes (i.e. a list of different types of rabbits on rabbit) is clearly encyclopedic. Examples of random system configurations of a Linux kernel function are not clearly encyclopedic - the variation therein is of scant notability and serves little purpose in illustrating what is happening; rather, the purpose appears to be to teach content matter. There's potential use in some example content, but reverting in the whole lot several times isn't helping. If the article is to be a useful encyclopedia article it needs rewritten. Chris Cunningham 11:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I reverted twice, then came here to discuss rather than edit warring. And I don't see the distinction you're drawing. Calling the examples "random system configurations" is like calling the examples on Knuth–Morris–Pratt algorithm or insertion sort "random implementations" and removing them. And what of the "random invocations" listed at grep and find (and dozens of others)? Apparently examples in articles about computing are acceptable, even when they are instructional of basic use of the technology. And as the examples used here were valid in demonstrating the basic use of binfmt_misc, I see no reason to exclude them. 64.234.1.144 17:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I find that articles on many Unix commands read too much like manuals/tutorials as well, particularly the 'find' one. I think it's an anti-pattern rather than something to follow. -- intgr [talk] 17:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Some articles include too many examples, beyond what is useful to merely illustrate applications of the technology. My point was that examples seem to be the norm in articles on computing--even in articles about well-documented system commands. Given that binfmt_misc is a rather obscure technology, documented only in the kernel source (which is not installed by default on many systems), it seems fair to include not only a description of the format, but also a few practical examples of its use. I don't think the number of examples included here exceeded which is required for practical explanation of the technology. 64.234.1.144 05:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Given that it's basically just some technical incantation, its sheer obscurity should probably work against it. "Fair" is not an argument; we're not here to preserve or highlight random hard-to-find things on the Internet. Chris Cunningham 08:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually 64.234.1.144 has a point. I added a short example to the article which in my opinion is enough to illustrate the format; having more elaborate examples however is out of the scope of Wikipedia. I suggest that the removed examples should be copied to a Linux help wiki (such as gentoo-wiki.com or wiki.linuxquestions.org), and just linked from this article's "external links". -- intgr [talk] 10:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Perfect. That's all we need, I reckon. Chris Cunningham 10:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me as well. 64.234.1.144 02:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Mono

Can it be used to detect .NET executables to run with Mono instead of Wine for .exe files? -- Frap (talk) 12:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

According to the very first result Google returns for "binfmt misc mono", this would appear to be perfectly possible. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Binfmt misc. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100118183358/http://www.tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de:80/~rguenth/linux/binfmt_misc.html to http://www.tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de/~rguenth/linux/binfmt_misc.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:39, 18 February 2016 (UTC)