Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1996 16:04:34 GMT From: Adam David <adam@veda.is> To: wpaul@skynet.ctr.columbia.EDU (Bill Paul) Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Plan for integrating Secure RPC -- comments wanted Message-ID: <199612221604.QAA21531@veda.is> References: <199612152152.OAA24022@phaeton.artisoft.com> <199612152351.SAA05656@skynet.ctr.columbia.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Terry: >> Is there a reason you have not considered just taking the step of >> linking these programs shared (option 4?)? This would resolve all >> of the problems simply and effectively. Bill: >Yes: I _like_ the fact that /bin and /sbin are linked static (/bin >mostly). The commands there keep working in the face of a corrupted >or deleted libc.so. I'm not in a hurry to change this. >> I believe the reasons for not running with a shared world are now >> largely irrelevant: the shared library dirty page library clobber >> bug seems to have died more than a year ago, and there is no real >> good reason for it. >That depends on your opinion. Again, I like having some purely static >binaries around to help deal in a shared lib crisis. Also, consider >fsck, which needs to be run on /usr (if /usr is not on the rootfs) >before /usr is mounted. We would have to move libc.so to the rootfs >in order for fsck to work if it was linked dynamic. Put static executables in /bin and /sbin, but mount directories of dynamic executables over them at a later stage. This offers the possibility of conserving memory at the expense of a little more disk space. The static copies could even be accessed later on via an alternative path if necessary. -- Adam David <adam@veda.is>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199612221604.QAA21531>