Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 07:42:14 -0600 From: Kenneth Ingham <ingham@i-pi.com> To: Peter Wemm <peter@netplex.com.au> Cc: freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: lost or damaged libc.so Message-ID: <19980422074214.02248@i-pi.com> In-Reply-To: <199804220504.NAA01624@spinner.netplex.com.au>; from Peter Wemm on Wed, Apr 22, 1998 at 01:04:35PM %2B0800 References: <199804211814.OAA23669@brain.zeus.leitch.com> <199804220504.NAA01624@spinner.netplex.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Apr 22, 1998 at 01:04:35PM +0800, Peter Wemm wrote: > FWIW, I'm a little amazed at the paranoia about dynamic linking. I have > *never* *ever* "lost" or damaged ld.so except through stupidity (made a > mistake with a source change and caused an undefined symbol). I have never > lost or damaged libc.so except through stupidity (again, generally through > normal development accidents with undefined symbols). I can provide a counterexample to this. I had a disk on a NeXT develop a bad spot in it's shared C library. Really frustrating, because the programs which you would use to do a restore from backup were all dynamically linked. Booting from the CD on the NeXT doesn't work like you'd hope, because the read-only applies to all mounts below it also (sigh). On the other hand, it would be easier to recover from this problem on a FreeBSD system than it was on the NeXT (it's easier to run from the CD). Kenneth To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe security" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19980422074214.02248>