[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201502200922.t1K9Mrdj017109@acsinet22.oracle.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 10:22:53 +0100
From: Casper.Dik@...cle.com
To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Fixing the glibc runtime linker
>FWIW, relative RPATHs are quite fundamental to our test execution
>environment, and any patch that unconditionally ignores them would
>have to be reverted in our tree.
But wouldn't that make the libraries and executables less reliable?
They can pick up random libraries or cause some delays when one of the
relative paths points to a NFS mounted directory.
Any reason you can't change to using LD_LIBRARY_PATH for testing?
I've run into relative directories and even /net/xxx/ search paths but I
believe these should never be used as part of a binary distribution.
Casper
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Please check out the
Open Source Software Security Wiki, which is counterpart to this
mailing list.
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
