From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/6836 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: u-wsnj@aetey.se Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: dynamic linking (Re: [musl] musl and android) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 13:00:05 +0100 Message-ID: <20150115120004.GY14316@example.net> References: <20150115161322.4ee903b7@sibserver.ru> <20150115110158.GN4574@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1421323236 10170 80.91.229.3 (15 Jan 2015 12:00:36 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 12:00:36 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-6849-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Thu Jan 15 13:00:32 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1YBj6F-00045l-70 for gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org; Thu, 15 Jan 2015 13:00:31 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 24279 invoked by uid 550); 15 Jan 2015 12:00:26 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Original-Received: (qmail 24271 invoked from network); 15 Jan 2015 12:00:26 -0000 X-T2-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50 Received-SPF: none receiver=mailfe07.swip.net; client-ip=82.68.31.126; envelope-from=u-wsnj@aetey.se Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150115110158.GN4574@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:6836 Archived-At: On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 06:01:58AM -0500, Rich Felker wrote: > copy of the dynamic linker (libc.so/ld-musl) in the package > and executing the program via a wrapper script that manually invokes > the dynamic linker (so the hard-coded PT_INTERP pathname isn't > needed). > But these are not the approaches I'd like to be > recommending in the long term... :( Actually I believe (and know from long time experience) this to be the only "sane"/robust/general way to run dynamically linked executables. I don't think that the implications of hardcoding the interpreter path were well understood when dynamic linking was first deployed, the hardcoding merely became percepted as the only/natural approach when the purpose was to cheaply imitate the behaviour of statically linked programs. (This mimics the #!/... which is similarly limited/broken. The plain text scripts are though relatively easy to modify to hack around the limitation, according to local curcumstances) Rune