[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150531185142.7cf46c31@pirotess>
Date: Sun, 31 May 2015 18:51:42 -0300
From: Ismael Luceno <ismael@...ev.co.uk>
To: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
Cc: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Allow different paths for static and shared
libraries
On Sun, 31 May 2015 12:30:34 -0400
Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> wrote:
> On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 06:10:54AM -0300, Ismael Luceno wrote:
> > On Sun, 31 May 2015 03:31:57 -0400
> > Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> wrote:
> > > On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 04:24:25AM -0300, Ismael Luceno wrote:
> > > > Signed-off-by: Ismael Luceno <ismael@...ev.co.uk>
> > > > ---
> > > > Makefile | 5 ++++-
> > > > configure | 3 +++
> > > > 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > [...]
> > >
> > > Is there a motivation/intended-usage-case for this patch?
> >
> > libc.so must be available at boot, while the static libraries don't
> > need to, so installing to different paths comes useful.
>
> In that case I think you're not looking for the semantics of slibdir
> but rather using it as a mechanism to make ldso available before
> libdir is mounted.
>
> Note that having libc.so and libc.a in different dirs is very
> problematic/dangerous at linking time. If the dir containing libc.a is
> searched first, then it will get linked into dynamic-linked binaries
> and very bad things will happen.
>
> I think this is probably yet another case of wanting ldso to be the
> canonical file and libc.so to be a symlink to it (reversing symlink
> direction). This issue has come up many times before but I always
> forget how it was resolved (or not) and why nothing changed...
>
> Rich
A ld script in place of libc.so, containing "GROUP ( /lib/libc.so )",
would workaround that.
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.
