Subject: Re: Dynamic libraries, bad libc and problems...
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Greg A. Woods <email@example.com>
Date: 10/01/2002 13:08:26
[ On Tuesday, October 1, 2002 at 08:08:44 (-0700), Jason R Thorpe wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: Dynamic libraries, bad libc and problems...
> On Sun, Sep 29, 2002 at 04:24:29PM +0200, Johnny Billquist wrote:
> > I cannot just remove the link from libc.so.12 and then relink it, unless
> > I'm mistaken, since ln now needs libc.so.12 to exist for it to work.
> > I cannot boot /rescue, since that one *too* is built on the latest libc,
> > and so I don't trust it.
> ...and the hole in your argument -- a static /bin or /sbin would also have
> been linked against the new libc, and thus by your argument, you would not
> be able to trust it.
Perhaps -- it all depends on exactly what's wrong with the new libc.
Given the relative complexity of dynamic runtime linking of shared
libraries it seems much more likely that the error has something to do
with dynamic linking and nothing really to do with the objects being
However even if it is a problem in one of the objects, it's still more
likely only to drastically affect dynamic linked binaries and not all
static linked binaries -- for example the broken object(s) might not
even be included in a static-linked 'ln' binary.
Greg A. Woods
+1 416 218-0098; <firstname.lastname@example.org>; <email@example.com>
Planix, Inc. <firstname.lastname@example.org>; VE3TCP; Secrets of the Weird <email@example.com>