Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 09:54:10 +0600 (NOVT) From: "Maxim M. Kazachek" <stranger@sberbank.sibnet.ru> To: David Wolfskill <david@catwhisker.org> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything Message-ID: <20031124094608.F63263@sbk-gw.sibnet.ru> In-Reply-To: <200311240343.hAO3hWmU002266@bunrab.catwhisker.org> References: <200311240343.hAO3hWmU002266@bunrab.catwhisker.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 23 Nov 2003, David Wolfskill wrote:
>>Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 09:34:08 +0600 (NOVT)
>>From: "Maxim M. Kazachek" <stranger@sberbank.sibnet.ru>
>
>> So, imagine, i'm accidentally deleted /bin with your most wanted
>>static sh... And, of course, due to static nature of /bin/sh it was
>>removed from /rescue? Nothing will protect you from shooting in the leg,
>>neither static linking, nor assumption that /lib is OK.
>
>So go ahead and make /bin/sh also have a (hard) link to /rescue/sh.
>Then the referenced action merely decrements the link count, and the
>executable itself doesn't go away.
>
>Sure, you could be more imaginative with foot-shooting, but the stated
>problem is really easy to avoid.
>
>Peace,
>david (reluctant to contribute to this thread....)
>--
>David H. Wolfskill david@catwhisker.org
>If you want true virus-protection for your PC, install a non-Microsoft OS
>on it. Plausible candidates include FreeBSD, Linux, NetBSD, OpenBSD, and
>Solaris (in alphabetical order).
I'm a real masochist, and removed /rescue/sh /sbin/sh whatsoever.
And after that will begin complain, that FreeBSD is ugly, non bullet-proof
operating system... :-)
But, in fact, as I can remember, all /rescue stuff is one
hadlinked executable. I don't think that hardlinking /bin/sh into /rescue
would be nice idea... IMHO it's not clear.
Sincerely, Maxim M. Kazachek
mailto:stranger@sberbank.sibnet.ru
mailto:stranger@fpm.ami.nstu.ru
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20031124094608.F63263>