Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2014 21:27:10 +0100 From: Laurent Bercot <ska-dietlibc@...rnet.org> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Re: MUSL_LIBRARY_PATH ? On 06/04/2014 18:22, Rich Felker wrote: > Actually execline is not a solution for this, since the #! line that > invokes execline has to contain an absolute pathname to execline, > which is exactly the same problem we were trying to solve to begin > with: the need to install the program interpreter at a fixed absolute > pathname on a system you might not have root on. That will of course change when execline has conquered the world and is installed by every administrator at a standardized location. You're not helping me much with that goal here. :) > This can be avoided by using /usr/bin/env if you're willing to trust > that the env command is at that location and and the user adds > execline to their PATH, but that's fragile and adds yet another level > of indirection at program exec time... Yes, even /bin/sh is probably better than /usr/bin/env + another indirection. > The idea of the minimal static-linked binary as a solution is that it > would not need a program interpreter (dynamic linker or #! type) but > instead could do its own search (e.g. relative to its own binary) for > the dynamic linker to invoke. It's certainly the most efficient solution for any given binary, but it's less scalable - as in easy to maintain - than a script-based solution. -- Laurent
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.