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
  | linked.
  | 
  | 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.