Subject: Re: "su" in rescue?
To: None <tech-userlevel@NetBSD.org>
From: Ignatios Souvatzis <email@example.com>
Date: 06/29/2004 10:03:50
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 05:57:43PM +1000, Luke Mewburn wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 02:30:13PM -0400, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> | firstname.lastname@example.org (Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino) writes:
> | > ok, i got enough comment. so new proposal: could you please make
> | > /usr/bin/su a static binary? it's a one-line Makefile change.
> | The problem with that is that it will mean that /usr/bin/su can't
> | handle things like dynamically linked database modules, for dealing
> | with things like hesiod and such.
> | I would suggest that the "right" thing is to create a statically
> | linked su *in addition* to the normal /usr/bin/su, and copy that into
> | /rescue. We could easily do the makefile machinery to handle that.
> I still haven't seen a justification why this would be necessary.
> What is wrong with "boot -as" (or the platform equivalent), and
> repairing the problem with /rescue/init && /rescue/* ?
I think the person in question (I lost track of the origin of this thread) =
to repair a system while remotely logged in as a non-root (when e.g. NFS /u=
gone away for some reason) without using a remote console.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----