ELF dynamic loader name [was: sbrk(2) broken]
sobomax at FreeBSD.org
Fri Jan 4 15:39:03 PST 2008
Peter Wemm wrote:
> While this doesn't count as an explicit vote against the rename, we can
> solve the chroot problem easily. I did this once already, but for some
> reason never got around to committing it.
> However, renaming ld-elf.so.1 is a bad idea in general. Yes, it would
> have been better to have had the arch name in there from the start, but
> it doesn't. It is unfortunate, but I feel that changing it will cause
> far more pain across the board than it would solve for the specific case
> of chrooting i386 binaries. I don't think it is worth it.
> There are a whole bunch of references to the ld-elf.so.1 name. Not just
> in our tree, but in external 3rd party code. Even things like gdb
> "know" how to handle ld-elf.so.1. Getting those upstream folks to add
> additional strcmp()'s for ld-elf-i386.so.1, ld-elf-amd64.so.1 etc will
> be hard enough, and it will add another hurdle that minor platform
> maintainers have to overcome. ld-elf-mips-be-4Kc.so.1 anybody? (ok,
> that last one is a stretch)
> Anyway, I'm not absolutely against it, but I think it will be a net loss
> overall. We'll have more pain than I think it is worth, especially
> since the alternatives are much easier.
I see, what about moving it into /libexec/<arch>/? Is it better approach?
More information about the freebsd-current