On 2013-09-27 16:36, Thomas Bächler wrote:
> In his 'Aren’t statically linked executables huge?' section, he wants to
> say that statically linked binaries are not as big as people think. For
> that, he compares two binaries of ksh:
>
> Static uclibc: 170KB
> Dynamic glibc: 234KB
>
> This compariso
Am 27.09.2013 16:10, schrieb Chris Down:
>> That FAQ seems to be about
>> some bitterness about glibc and its code, which has nothing to do with
>> static and dynamic linking.
>
> Not really. The releated references to glibc are more about refuting the
> "size" argument when linking against it (as
On 2013-09-27 15:13, Thomas Bächler wrote:
> Am 27.09.2013 14:56, schrieb Chris Down:
> > Well, static libraries are not a waste of space if it was intentional.
> > Static linking should be preferred for a number of reasons[0], they
> > should be preferred in any sane Linux distribution (of which,
On 27/09/13 01:15, LANGLOIS Olivier PIS -EXT wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I just checked what was the motivation for this 5th release and I have found:
>
> http://hmarco.org/bugs/CVE-2013-4788.html
>
> where it says:
>
> The vulnerability is caused due to the non initialization to a random value
> (it is
On 27/09/13 22:56, Chris Down wrote:
> On 2013-09-26 08:53, Gaetan Bisson wrote:
>> Some Arch packages even provide static libraries for convenience, such
>> as gcc and glibc. And unfortunately a few higher-level packages also
>> provide static libraries because their maintainers did not notice the
Am 27.09.2013 14:56, schrieb Chris Down:
> Well, static libraries are not a waste of space if it was intentional.
> Static linking should be preferred for a number of reasons[0], they
> should be preferred in any sane Linux distribution (of which,
> unfortunately I can't name any at the moment unti
On 2013-09-26 08:53, Gaetan Bisson wrote:
> Some Arch packages even provide static libraries for convenience, such
> as gcc and glibc. And unfortunately a few higher-level packages also
> provide static libraries because their maintainers did not notice the
> waste of space...
Well, static librari
[2013-09-26 15:15:12 +] LANGLOIS Olivier PIS -EXT:
> So, out of curiosity, how big is the threat since I am under the impression
> that almost 100% if not 100% of Arch binaries uses libc.so
People are free to build static libraries on Arch and use them. There
are probably not many who do that
Hi,
I just checked what was the motivation for this 5th release and I have found:
http://hmarco.org/bugs/CVE-2013-4788.html
where it says:
The vulnerability is caused due to the non initialization to a random value (it
is always zero) of the "pointer guard" by the glibc only when generating st
9 matches
Mail list logo
