Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 11:53:21 -0400 From: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> To: "Daniel C. Sobral" <dcs@tcoip.com.br>, Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Making a dynamically-linked root Message-ID: <p05210600bb03c1946f88@[128.113.24.47]> In-Reply-To: <3EDDF732.1060606@tcoip.com.br> References: <20030603113927.I71313@cvs.imp.ch> <16092.35144.948752.554975@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> <20030603115432.EGLB13328.out002.verizon.net@kokeb.ambesa.net> <20030603122226.BGPM11703.pop018.verizon.net@kokeb.ambesa.net> <3EDD81A4.B6F83135@mindspring.com> <3EDDF732.1060606@tcoip.com.br>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 10:42 AM -0300 6/4/03, Daniel C. Sobral wrote: >So, I did not have any single point of failure for single >file corruption before. Now I do. But you claim there was >not significant increase, statistically speaking. Could >you please point out what am I missing? If you do not want a dynamically-linked root, then do not turn on the option which will give you one. Me, if any of these files are corrupt, I generally reboot into a different snapshot of freebsd, or boot up off a CD and fix things from there. While it's an entertaining exercise to see if you can rescue a badly-damaged system while running from that very same system, the same way it was exciting to watch "Das Boot" and see if the crew will survive, I usually have better things I would like to do with my time. Furthermore, you're approaching this as if "corruption" is only a hardware issue. What if the "corruption" is that your system has just been broken into? Well, then, you pretty much can not trust anything, even if a program does run. So why not have a plan (such as a bootable CD-rom) which works for all kinds of corruption? Personally, I'm a lot more concerned about a break-in than hardware-failure, but maybe I'm just lucky with hardware. I realize that there are many legitimate uses which will have problems with a dynamically-linked root, but I expect that for most users that is not a requirement. For the situations where it is important, I do expect that freebsd should always support the option to have a statically-linked root. If a user needs a statically-linked root but does not know they need it, then they probably won't know enough to fix a severely-broken system anyway. -- Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@gilead.netel.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or gad@freebsd.org Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@rpi.edu
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?p05210600bb03c1946f88>