[lkml]   [2001]   [Oct]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: 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 *.o || mv /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?


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:04    [W:0.159 / U:0.032 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site