Date: Sun, 02 Feb 2003 12:13:12 -0600 From: Kevin Day <toasty@dragondata.com> To: "Jacques A. Vidrine" <nectar@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Using 4.3-RELEASE's libc on 5.0 causes hard lockups Message-ID: <5.1.1.5.2.20030202115928.036a1268@127.0.0.1> In-Reply-To: <20030202175456.GC36076@opus.celabo.org> References: <5.1.1.5.2.20030202114819.044fd230@127.0.0.1> <5.1.1.5.2.20030202112759.0461fcc8@127.0.0.1> <5.1.1.5.2.20030202112759.0461fcc8@127.0.0.1> <5.1.1.5.2.20030202114819.044fd230@127.0.0.1>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 11:54 AM 2/2/2003, Jacques A. Vidrine wrote: > > 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 need the old libc.so.4 will find it in >/usr/lib/compat/libc.so.4 (or /usr/lib/libc.so.4 if you didn't remove >it, for that matter). Well, things were definitely picking /usr/lib/libc.so.4 over anything in compat. Should sysinstall have nuked my /usr/lib/libc if it was putting the correct one in compat? > 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. > >Probably not, although if you have processes running as root and using >the `wrong' libc, all bets are off. Well, after I recompiled httpd (which did have a single process owned by root) and rebooted, nothing at all owned by root touched anything that was compiled under 4.x. Non-privileged regular users owned the process owned by analog, which caused the same behavior. Me running analog under my normal account could kill processes owned by "nobody" with segfaults. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5.1.1.5.2.20030202115928.036a1268>