[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150115120004.GY14316@example.net>
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 13:00:05 +0100
From: u-wsnj@...ey.se
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: dynamic linking (Re: musl and android)
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 06:01:58AM -0500, Rich Felker wrote:
> copy of the dynamic linker (libc.so/ld-musl) in the package
> and executing the program via a wrapper script that manually invokes
> the dynamic linker (so the hard-coded PT_INTERP pathname isn't
> needed).
> But these are not the approaches I'd like to be
> recommending in the long term... :(
Actually I believe (and know from long time experience) this to be
the only "sane"/robust/general way to run dynamically linked executables.
I don't think that the implications of hardcoding the interpreter
path were well understood when dynamic linking was first deployed,
the hardcoding merely became percepted as the only/natural approach
when the purpose was to cheaply imitate the behaviour of statically
linked programs. (This mimics the #!/... which is similarly
limited/broken. The plain text scripts are though relatively easy
to modify to hack around the limitation, according to local curcumstances)
Rune
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
