Re: Security question: "Text file busy" overwriting executables but not shared libraries?

Richard Gooch
2001-10-04T17:19:32Z

Andreas Schwab writes:
> Richard Gooch <rgooch@ras.ucalgary.ca> writes:
>
> |> Linus Torvalds writes:
> |> >
> |> > On 4 Oct 2001, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> |> > >
> |> > > First what user space really wants is the MAP_COPY. Which is
> |> > > MAP_PRIVATE with the guarantee that they don't see anyone else's changes.
> |> >
> |> > Which is a completely idiotic idea, and which is only just another
> |> > example of how absolutely and stunningly _stupid_ Hurd is.
> |>
> |> Indeed. If you're updated a shared library, why not *create a new
> |> file* and then rename it?!? That lets running programmes work fine,
> |> and new programmes will get the new library. Also, the following
> |> construct makes a lot of sense:
> |> ld -shared -o libfred.so *.o || mv libfred.so /usr/local/lib
>
> That || should be &&, otherwise you are doing exactly the opposite
> of what you want.

Yeah. Of course. Brain fart. Fingers faster than brain syndrome...

Regards,

Richard....
Permanent: rgooch@atnf.csiro.au
Current: rgooch@ras.ucalgary.ca