From owner-freebsd-current Sun Feb 2 9:53:16 2003 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89EB437B401; Sun, 2 Feb 2003 09:53:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from shell.dragondata.com (shell.dragondata.com [66.17.132.249]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B907643F3F; Sun, 2 Feb 2003 09:53:14 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from toasty@dragondata.com) Received: (from root@localhost) by shell.dragondata.com (8.12.6/8.12.6) id h12HrBJt063130; Sun, 2 Feb 2003 11:53:11 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from toasty@dragondata.com) Received: from KEVIN-AW.dragondata.com (toasty@localhost.dragondata.com [127.0.0.1]) by shell.dragondata.com (8.12.6/8.12.6av) with ESMTP id h12Hr6eA063121; Sun, 2 Feb 2003 11:53:07 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from toasty@dragondata.com) Message-Id: <5.1.1.5.2.20030202114819.044fd230@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: toasty@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1.1 Date: Sun, 02 Feb 2003 11:53:22 -0600 To: "Jacques A. Vidrine" From: Kevin Day Subject: Re: Using 4.3-RELEASE's libc on 5.0 causes hard lockups Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <20030202174223.GB36076@opus.celabo.org> References: <5.1.1.5.2.20030202112759.0461fcc8@127.0.0.1> <5.1.1.5.2.20030202112759.0461fcc8@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Virus-Scanned: by Dragondata mail server Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG At 11:42 AM 2/2/2003, Jacques A. Vidrine wrote: >On Sun, Feb 02, 2003 at 11:41:32AM -0600, Kevin Day wrote: > > lrwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel 9 Feb 1 00:18 libc.so -> libc.so.5 > > lrwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel 16 Jul 5 2002 libc.so.3 -> /usr/lib/libc.so > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >This is seriously messed up. See below. > > > -r--r--r-- 1 root wheel 571480 Aug 5 13:45 libc.so.4 > > -r--r--r-- 1 root wheel 836892 Feb 1 00:18 libc.so.5 > > > > > > Shouldn't libc.so.4 have been a symlink to libc.so after a compat4x > > install? In any case, doing that myself seemed to fix everything. > >No, this would cause you major problems. Binaries that expected the >libc.so.4 interface would be calling into libc.so.5, and probably >causing very strange behaviour. Ok, I admit, no matter how it happened, an application using the wrong libc is a bad thing. But, how are things supposed to work? Apps that were using the old libc.so.4 complained about unresolved symbols(_stdoutp usually). If I removed /usr/lib/libc.so.4 they complained that they couldn't find libc, If I did create link libc.so.4 to libc.so.5 everything appeared to work just fine, but I know that's probably a fluke. In any case, a system lockup or being able to crash other user's processes just by having the wrong libc shouldn't be possible no matter what happens. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message