Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Thu, 4 Oct 2001 10:02:00 -0600 | From | Richard Gooch <> | Subject | Re: Security question: "Text file busy" overwriting executables but not shared libraries? |
| |
Linus Torvalds writes: > > On 4 Oct 2001, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > > > First what user space really wants is the MAP_COPY. Which is > > MAP_PRIVATE with the guarantee that they don't see anyone else's changes. > > Which is a completely idiotic idea, and which is only just another > example of how absolutely and stunningly _stupid_ Hurd is.
Indeed. If you're updated a shared library, why not *create a new file* and then rename it?!? That lets running programmes work fine, and new programmes will get the new library. Also, the following construct makes a lot of sense: ld -shared -o libfred.so *.o || mv libfred.so /usr/local/lib
Why? Because if ld(1) fails for some reason, and ends up writing a short file, *you don't want to install the bloody thing*!!! Any new user would be stuffed (no way around that, even with MAP_COPY). I don't want to install/upgrade to a half-working library. What's the point in that?
Regards,
Richard.... Permanent: rgooch@atnf.csiro.au Current: rgooch@ras.ucalgary.ca - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |