Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 13:43:58 -0500 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: Ceri Davies <ceri@submonkey.net> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Mostly static binaries with crunchgen Message-ID: <200512201343.59668.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20051220155821.GG68989@submonkey.net> References: <20051220114121.GA58620@submonkey.net> <200512201029.28699.jhb@freebsd.org> <20051220155821.GG68989@submonkey.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tuesday 20 December 2005 10:58 am, Ceri Davies wrote: > On Tue, Dec 20, 2005 at 10:29:27AM -0500, John Baldwin wrote: > > The other concern is does this force the entire crunch to require a > > working rtld now? If so, that would mean that this wouldn't be > > appropriate for something such as /rescue. If there were a way to > > statically link rtld into the crunch itself that would probably be ideal, > > but I'm not sure that is possible. > > No, just the dynamic bits require rtld. So you can still run /foo without rtld being present if foo doesn't need dlopen, etc.? It looks like you link the crunch with -o dynamic, so isn't the kernel going to complain when you try to exec it that it can't find rtld if rtld is missing? (Think about /rescue if your rtld is hosed and/or missing.) -- John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve" = http://www.FreeBSD.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200512201343.59668.jhb>