Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2015 00:12:40 -0500 From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: musl & proprietary programs On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 01:51:35AM +0700, Рысь wrote: > On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 12:43:52 -0500 > Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 12:22:05AM +0700, Рысь wrote: > > > On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 15:48:53 +0100 > > > Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@...t70.net> wrote: > > > > > > > * Alba Pompeo <albapompeo@...il.com> [2015-12-22 13:37:52 -0200]: > > > > > chroot is a little better than dual-boot, but still very > > > > > unfriendly for a day-to-day usage of many proprietary tools. > > > > > > > > > > > > > on x86, binaries linked against glibc can be made to work with > > > > musl. > > > > > > > > but isolating such software into a separate virtual environment > > > > is a good idea anyway and then it's easier to use glibc based > > > > userspace there. > > > > > > Well that's fine until you will not face something dynamic. A simple > > > example: some of my machines successfully runs LibreOffice 4 inside > > > Slackware 14 chroot. Problems start when user wants to save a > > > document to USB stick. This is a valid use case, but fails because > > > you end up with mounting USB stick twice. This requires wrappers. > > > And in *DE environments they will be lost under pressure of various > > > mount daemons or something like that. But at rest, it works > > > flawlessly. > > > > > > Maybe Alba Pompeo just faces an issue with wide filesystem tree that > > > needs to be inside chroot. > > > > I don't see why chroot is necessary at all. If you want a glibc > > environment for a single app you can put all the glibc stuff in its > > own library path and either invoke the binary manually using the glibc > > dynamic linker or have (a symlink to) the glibc dynamic linker in > > /lib. Then it can access the normal filesystem just fine. > > > > Containers (or just chroot) are of course preferable when you actually > > do want to isolate the program for trust/privilege purposes, but > > they're not a technical requirement for running foreign-libc binaries. > > And glibc will not pickup random musl linked shared objects from > standard paths (/lib:/usr/lib) from host? To be honest, I did not even > tried just because I do not want to pollute my systems with glibc. glibc's dynamic linker gets its library paths from ld.so.conf which is in $sysconfdir. If you build your own glibc you can set that to something other than /etc, or you can just be content with it living in /etc since musl does not use it. I'm not 100% sure it doesn't also have built-in default paths that aren't replaced by ld.so.conf, but if it does, those will be suppressed by building your own glibc with a different $prefix. Rich
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.