Re: [PATCH] ldd: Do not recommend binutils as the safer option

[Alejandro Colomar <alx@kernel.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1493 bytes --]

On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 04:32:02PM +0545, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On 16 Oct 2023 02:19, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> > The binutils security policy[1] states that diagnostic tools should not
> > be expected to be safe without sandboxing, so it doesn't make sense to
> > recommend it as the alternative to ldd, especially since it is not a
> > drop-in replacement.  Recommend sandboxing instead, since that is in
> > fact the safest known way at the moment to deal with untrusted binaries.
> 
> fwiw, this is one reason why i wrote `lddtree` (although the primary reason
> was cross-compiling and separate-root dirs).  it's part of the pax-utils
> project that's available in most distros now.
> -mike

Hi Mike,

Is there a manual page for lddtree(1)?

alx@debian:~$ man lddtree
No manual entry for lddtree
alx@debian:~$ apt-file show pax-utils
pax-utils: /usr/bin/dumpelf               
pax-utils: /usr/bin/lddtree
pax-utils: /usr/bin/pspax
pax-utils: /usr/bin/scanelf
pax-utils: /usr/bin/scanmacho
pax-utils: /usr/bin/symtree
pax-utils: /usr/share/doc/pax-utils/changelog.Debian.gz
pax-utils: /usr/share/doc/pax-utils/copyright
pax-utils: /usr/share/man/man1/dumpelf.1.gz
pax-utils: /usr/share/man/man1/pspax.1.gz
pax-utils: /usr/share/man/man1/scanelf.1.gz
pax-utils: /usr/share/man/man1/scanmacho.1.gz

Would you mind pointing to some documentation for it?  Or write a page
if you feel like. :)

Cheers,
Alex

-- 
<https://www.alejandro-colomar.es/>

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]