Subject: Re: Dynamic libraries, bad libc and problems...
To: NetBSD-current Discussion List <current-users@NetBSD.ORG>
From: Luke Mewburn <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 10/02/2002 13:58:59
On Tue, Oct 01, 2002 at 01:08:26PM -0400, Greg A. Woods wrote:
| [ 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 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.
I read Jason's reply as answering the concern about the stability of
the /rescue tools in that circumstance, not the trustworthiness of
dynamic linked applications in this case..
I.e, Johnny was concerned that /rescue can't be "trusted" with a
broken libc. Jason's comment is that a statically linked /bin
would be affected by the same issue, so it's a moot point.