On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 11:57:23AM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 07:25:23PM +0400, Sergei Organov wrote: > > >> 4. Probably ld-linux.so itself should not segfault no matter what. > > > Thank you very much for clarification. Yes, I did it wrong, and now the > > program does start, but the (4) above holds, right? Therefore I still > > think it's a bug in ld-linux.so, even though not an important one for me > > anymore. > > No, I don't think (4) holds. This is one of the most performance > critical programs on a Linux system; it assumes that the input files > are somewhat valid. not to mention that if you put any random .so because of LD_LIBRARY_PATH in the linker path and expect it to work properly whatever happens, then well, you're profoundly mistaken IMHO. That's exactly one of the reason why LD_LIBRARY_PATH (among other *PATH variables) is not kept across sudo's e.g.). And under unix you somehow trust other process sharing uids with you for not wanting to destroy the system. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O madcoder@debian.org OOO http://www.madism.org
Attachment:
pgp1F5efVmJVY.pgp
Description: PGP signature