Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 16:24:19 -0500 (EST) From: "John S. Dyson" <toor@dyson.iquest.net> To: woods@zeus.leitch.com Cc: freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Static vs. dynamic linking (was Re: Using MD5 insted of DES ...) Message-ID: <199804222124.QAA05889@dyson.iquest.net> In-Reply-To: <199804222056.QAA02964@brain.zeus.leitch.com> from "Greg A. Woods" at "Apr 22, 98 04:56:25 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> [ On Wed, April 22, 1998 at 22:24:24 (+0200), Mark Murray wrote: ] > > Subject: Re: Static vs. dynamic linking (was Re: Using MD5 insted of DES ...) > > > > Is my summary OK? > > If you're looking for a consensus, then no. ;-) > > (in certain circumstances I find any dynamic loading of code, be it > through shared libraries, or run-time loading of .o's, or whatever, to > be highly undesirable, and I think that's effectively what several other > people have concluded too) > Dynamic linking of binaries <can> have both negative CPU usage and memory usage consequences. Shared libs are not always a win. They are especially bad in the case of shells or other programs where there are numerous instances (both dynamic and static.) For WWW servers with CGI's they are bad. For WWW servers with lots of daemon instances, they are bad for the daemon. For FTP servers, the ftpd should not be shared. For mail hubs, the sendmail should not be shared. Basic, simple commands should not be shared, for recovery reasons. The only time that they are an almost guaranteed win is when the libaries are large and complex, like X windows apps. (I am assuming that disk space isn't much of a concern anymore, due to the amazingly low cost of disk space today.) John 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?199804222124.QAA05889>