Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything

2003-11-25 Thread Tony Finch
Matthew D. Fuller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not just the startup scripts, but ANY script. I dare say there's a long, long list of scripts that use ~-expansion, to say nothing of the homegrown ones we all have working quietly and forgotten for years. It's required for POSIX compliance. Tony. --

Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything

2003-11-25 Thread Tony Finch
Robert Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Someone must be using /bin/sh as a shell, because apparently someone spent a lot of time adding things like character input editing, filename completion, etc. We even use sh as the default in adduser(8). Command-line editing is required for POSIX

Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything

2003-11-25 Thread Tim Kientzle
Tony Finch wrote: Matthew D. Fuller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not just the startup scripts, but ANY script. I dare say there's a long, long list of scripts that use ~-expansion, to say nothing of the homegrown ones we all have working quietly and forgotten for years. It's required for POSIX

Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything

2003-11-24 Thread Matthew D. Fuller
[ Lots of CC trimming ] On Sun, Nov 23, 2003 at 06:27:01PM -0500 I heard the voice of Richard Coleman, and lo! it spake thus: You would need to make sure that startup scripts never use tilde expansion. I'm not sure how common that is with RCNG. Not just the startup scripts, but ANY script.

Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything

2003-11-24 Thread Duncan Barclay
From: David O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'll seriously argue against the 2nd point above. I don't know of a SINGLE person that uses /bin/sh as their interactive shell when multi-user. Not ONE. Every Bourne shell'ish user I've ever met uses Bash, ATT ksh, pdksh, zsh. I don't know

Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything

2003-11-24 Thread Duncan Barclay
On Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 12:14:39AM -, Duncan Barclay wrote: From: David O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'll seriously argue against the 2nd point above. I don't know of a SINGLE person that uses /bin/sh as their interactive shell when multi-user. Not ONE. Every Bourne shell'ish

Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything

2003-11-24 Thread Robert Watson
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003, Maxim M. Kazachek wrote: MOST people uses /bin/sh only for rc scripts (to be correct, their system uses it). David O'Brien just tried to told, that NOBODY he knows will be REALLY impacted by performance loss, caused due dynamic /bin/sh linking. You will... So, because

Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything

2003-11-24 Thread Andrew Gallatin
Robert Watson writes: It strikes me that this whole conversation has gotten a little confrontational... The middle ground of adding a static /sbin/sh for scripts soudds like a reasonable choice, and has precedent in other systems (Solaris). We can set the boot and periodic scripts to

Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything

2003-11-24 Thread David O'Brien
On Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 10:47:24AM -0500, Robert Watson wrote: It strikes me that this whole conversation has gotten a little confrontational... The middle ground of adding a static /sbin/sh for scripts soudds like a reasonable choice, and has precedent in other systems (Solaris). Time for a

Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything

2003-11-24 Thread Richard Coleman
Andrew Gallatin wrote: So I think the best solution (*) would be to keep /bin/sh statically linked, and build a dynamic version in /usr/bin that people can use as an interactive shell. Root's shell remains /bin/sh 1) All three (;-) interactive bourne shell users that use nss/ldap get tilde

Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything

2003-11-24 Thread Andrew Gallatin
Richard Coleman writes: Are you suggesting that (t)csh also move to /usr/bin to match /usr/bin/sh? The screams caused by such a change would be deafening. Of course not. Nobody in their right mind uses csh for scripting. Drew ___ [EMAIL

Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything

2003-11-24 Thread Matthias Andree
Richard Coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Are you suggesting that (t)csh also move to /usr/bin to match /usr/bin/sh? The screams caused by such a change would be deafening. Would there be any screams at all? chsh -s /bin/sh root# prevent lock-out rm -f /bin/csh /bin/tcsh

Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything

2003-11-24 Thread Brad Knowles
At 8:59 PM -0500 2003/11/24, Andrew Gallatin wrote: Of course not. Nobody in their right mind uses csh for scripting. To my great horror, csh is used in most of the DNS debugging and many of the log-processing scripts that I have inherited. One of these days, I will finally live up to my

Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything

2003-11-23 Thread David O'Brien
As I pointed out earlier, some of the heat here comes from the fact that /bin/sh is currently overloaded: * It is the default system script interpreter, used by the rc scripts and many other things. As such, it must start quickly. * It is the default user shell for many users. As

Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything

2003-11-23 Thread Richard Coleman
David O'Brien wrote: We should build /bin/sh static and be done with the argument. Or rather, lets find a /bin/sh interactive user and have him argue that /bin/sh needs NSS support. I dare say that will be a thread two orders of magnitude shorter than this one. Statically linking /bin/sh wouldn't

Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything

2003-11-23 Thread Duncan Barclay
From: David O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'll seriously argue against the 2nd point above. I don't know of a SINGLE person that uses /bin/sh as their interactive shell when multi-user. Not ONE. Every Bourne shell'ish user I've ever met uses Bash, ATT ksh, pdksh, zsh. I don't know anyone

Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything

2003-11-23 Thread Thomas David Rivers
So far, I haven't seen anyone in this thread seriously argue against either of these points. I'll seriously argue against the 2nd point above. I don't know of a SINGLE person that uses /bin/sh as their interactive shell when multi-user. Not ONE. Every Bourne shell'ish user I've ever

Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything

2003-11-23 Thread David O'Brien
On Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 12:14:39AM -, Duncan Barclay wrote: From: David O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'll seriously argue against the 2nd point above. I don't know of a SINGLE person that uses /bin/sh as their interactive shell when multi-user. Not ONE. Every Bourne shell'ish user

Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything

2003-11-23 Thread David O'Brien
On Sun, Nov 23, 2003 at 06:27:01PM -0500, Richard Coleman wrote: But it would be sorta odd to have statically linked versions of sh in both /bin and /rescue. We'd remove it from /rescue if the /bin/sh one was static. :-) -- -- David ([EMAIL PROTECTED])

Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything

2003-11-23 Thread Maxim M. Kazachek
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003, Duncan Barclay wrote: From: David O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'll seriously argue against the 2nd point above. I don't know of a SINGLE person that uses /bin/sh as their interactive shell when multi-user. Not ONE. Every Bourne shell'ish user I've ever met uses Bash,

Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything

2003-11-23 Thread David Wolfskill
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 09:34:08 +0600 (NOVT) From: Maxim M. Kazachek [EMAIL PROTECTED] So, imagine, i'm accidentally deleted /bin with your most wanted static sh... And, of course, due to static nature of /bin/sh it was removed from /rescue? Nothing will protect you from shooting in the

Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything

2003-11-23 Thread Maxim M. Kazachek
On Sun, 23 Nov 2003, David Wolfskill wrote: Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 09:34:08 +0600 (NOVT) From: Maxim M. Kazachek [EMAIL PROTECTED] So, imagine, i'm accidentally deleted /bin with your most wanted static sh... And, of course, due to static nature of /bin/sh it was removed from /rescue?

Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything

2003-11-22 Thread Dimitry Andric
On 2003-11-22 at 00:39:45 Tim Kientzle wrote: Right now, /sbin/init is statically linked. Not here... I've built everything with WITH_DYNAMICROOT since the time the option was introduced, and as such: # file /sbin/init /sbin/init: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (FreeBSD),

Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything

2003-11-22 Thread Richard Coleman
Garrett Wollman wrote: You forgot: * Allow statically-linked programs to use dynamic NSS modules by forking a (dynamically-linked) resolver process when needed. This leads to a related, but widely disparaged option: * Have a persistent NSS caching daemon with

Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything

2003-11-22 Thread Michael Edenfield
* Tim Kientzle [EMAIL PROTECTED] [031121 18:40]: Leo Bicknell wrote: To boot a machine into single user mode you need a kernel, init, and /bin/sh (minimally). It would seem to me that alone is a good argument for those three things to be static. * Rewrite dlopen() to not require dynamic

Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything

2003-11-21 Thread Peter Jeremy
On Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 09:29:30PM -0500, Richard Coleman wrote: But I've often wondered how frequently a production system has such problems. I've been a sysadmin for many years and can't remember this ever happening. It's much more common to blow a hard drive, or have flaky memory, etc.

Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything

2003-11-21 Thread Peter Jeremy
On Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 09:51:48PM +0100, boyd, rounin wrote: From: Peter Jeremy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Shouldn't that be 'chmod +t /bin/sh' ??? Definitely. Why waste a new bit when there's already a perfectly good one that is (or was) defined for the purpose. the 't' bit was known as the

Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything

2003-11-21 Thread boyd, rounin
From: Peter Jeremy [EMAIL PROTECTED] As for overloading the 't' bit, I don't believe it's ever been used for anything else on executable files. directories ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current

Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything

2003-11-21 Thread othermark
I got bit by this just two days ago. I have one machine that tracks -current. It upgraded to DYNAMICROOT just fine. I nfs mounted /usr/src and /usr/obj on another 5.0-release machine made the necessary adjustments, installed the kernel, rebooted, remounted and began make installworld. It

Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything

2003-11-21 Thread Bruce M Simpson
On Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 09:29:30PM -0500, Richard Coleman wrote: But I've often wondered how frequently a production system has such problems. I've been a sysadmin for many years and can't remember this ever happening. It's much more common to blow a hard drive, or have flaky memory, etc.

Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything

2003-11-21 Thread Garance A Drosihn
At 8:52 PM +1100 11/20/03, Peter Jeremy wrote: On Wed, Nov 19, 2003, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote: --On Wed, Nov 19, 2003, Garance A Drosihn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: have a: chflags ldcache /bin/sh Shouldn't that be 'chmod +t /bin/sh' ??? Definitely. Why waste a new bit when there's already a

Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything

2003-11-21 Thread Tim Kientzle
Leo Bicknell wrote: To boot a machine into single user mode you need a kernel, init, and /bin/sh (minimally). It would seem to me that alone is a good argument for those three things to be static. You need a static shell, yes. That does not have to be /bin/sh. init does prompt, and /rescue/sh is

Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything

2003-11-21 Thread Tim Kientzle
Leo Bicknell wrote: The more I think about init the more I don't like dynamic linking for it. init needs to have as few failure modes as possible. I do still think it's fine for all the other /bin and /sbin things. Right now, /sbin/init is statically linked. Tim Kientzle

Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything

2003-11-21 Thread Garrett Wollman
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 15:38:49 -0800, Tim Kientzle [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: There have been a lot of proposed solutions: * Rewrite NSS to not require dlopen(). * Rewrite dlopen() to not require dynamic linking. * Don't support NSS in /bin/sh. * Change the default script interpreter

Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything

2003-11-21 Thread Tim Kientzle
Bruce Evans wrote: It obviously uses NSS. How else could it be so bloated? : $ ls -l /sbin/init -r-x-- 1 root wheel 453348 Nov 18 10:30 /sbin/init I believe it's actually DNS, not NSS. Pre-5.0, the resolver ballooned significantly. A lot of the bloat in /bin and /sbin came from the NIS

Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything

2003-11-21 Thread Tim Kientzle
Garrett Wollman wrote: On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 15:38:49 -0800, Tim Kientzle [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: There have been a lot of proposed solutions: * Rewrite NSS to not require dlopen(). * Rewrite dlopen() to not require dynamic linking. * Don't support NSS in /bin/sh. * Change the default script

Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything

2003-11-21 Thread Bruce Evans
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003, Tim Kientzle wrote: Bruce Evans wrote: It obviously uses NSS. How else could it be so bloated? : $ ls -l /sbin/init -r-x-- 1 root wheel 453348 Nov 18 10:30 /sbin/init I believe it's actually DNS, not NSS. Pre-5.0, the resolver ballooned significantly. A

Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything

2003-11-21 Thread boyd, rounin
From: William Josephson [EMAIL PROTECTED] People at Berkeley (and elsewhere) have done user studies to try to quantify this sort of thing. It is pretty clear that with modern hardware, most failures are due to human error. That's not to say that hardware and software faults aren't real

Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything

2003-11-21 Thread Peter Jeremy
On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 04:52:00PM -0500, Garance A Drosihn wrote: Shouldn't that be 'chmod +t /bin/sh' ??? b) I thought that you might want to have this an admin-only command, so nefarious users couldn't abuse it on a shared system. I would make one change to your proposal: Instead of

Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything

2003-11-20 Thread Stijn Hoop
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 09:27:55PM -0800, Tim Kientzle wrote: Richard Coleman wrote: It seems /bin/sh is the real sticking point. There is a problem here: Unix systems have historically used /bin/sh for two somewhat contradictory purposes: * the system script interpreter * as a user

Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything

2003-11-20 Thread Peter Jeremy
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 11:18:47AM -0700, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote: --On Wednesday, November 19, 2003 12:30 AM -0500 Garance A Drosihn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: have a: chflags ldcache /bin/sh Shouldn't that be 'chmod +t /bin/sh' ??? Definitely. Why waste a new bit when there's already a

Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything

2003-11-20 Thread Tony Finch
Jacques A. Vidrine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Finally, if we could call `dlopen' from statically-linked binaries, this wouldn't be an issue. One of the performance problems that John Dyson mentioned (the sparse dirtying of libc's data section) would still remain, because the whole of libc has to

Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything

2003-11-20 Thread Tim Kientzle
Stijn Hoop wrote: On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 09:27:55PM -0800, Tim Kientzle wrote: Maybe it's time to separate these two functions? I would be content to have a static /sbin/sh that is used as the system script interpreter for rc scripts, etc. And /usr/bin/sh as a user shell? I was thinking /bin/sh

Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything

2003-11-20 Thread Dimitry Andric
On 2003-11-20 at 21:51:48 boyd, rounin wrote: think about a dynamically linked init(8) ... % sudo ldd /sbin/init /sbin/init: libutil.so.3 = /lib/libutil.so.3 (0x28074000) libcrypt.so.2 = /lib/libcrypt.so.2 (0x2807f000) libc.so.5 = /lib/libc.so.5 (0x28097000) Yes,

Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything

2003-11-20 Thread boyd, rounin
From: Dimitry Andric [EMAIL PROTECTED] % sudo ldd /sbin/init /sbin/init: libutil.so.3 = /lib/libutil.so.3 (0x28074000) libcrypt.so.2 = /lib/libcrypt.so.2 (0x2807f000) libc.so.5 = /lib/libc.so.5 (0x28097000) Yes, working fine here. What should the problem be?

Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything

2003-11-20 Thread Christopher Vance
On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 12:23:16AM +0100, boyd, rounin wrote: you're building a house of cards. once, if /etc/init and /bin/sh and some other pieces where in place a smashed file-system could be easily fixed. now you have to have 3 shared libs and a viable /lib. do you want systems that work?

Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything

2003-11-20 Thread boyd, rounin
From: Christopher Vance [EMAIL PROTECTED] Personally, I think init should be static, and can't think of any way it would benefit from shared libraries. plan 9 has everything static. the kernel compiles in about 20 seconds or less -- no compression -- and you can boot it off a floppy. if i can

Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything

2003-11-20 Thread Steve Kargl
On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 12:23:16AM +0100, boyd, rounin wrote: From: Dimitry Andric [EMAIL PROTECTED] % sudo ldd /sbin/init /sbin/init: libutil.so.3 = /lib/libutil.so.3 (0x28074000) libcrypt.so.2 = /lib/libcrypt.so.2 (0x2807f000) libc.so.5 = /lib/libc.so.5

Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything

2003-11-20 Thread boyd, rounin
From: Steve Kargl [EMAIL PROTECTED] This is only marginally different than /sbin/init getting smashed. If the root partition develops problems, you need to restore for tape. tape? who uses tape? optical, my son. brother, can you spare a TU-16?

Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything

2003-11-20 Thread M. Warner Losh
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED] boyd, rounin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: : Yes, working fine here. What should the problem be? : : the day /lib gets smashed. /rescue/sh Warner ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list

Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything

2003-11-20 Thread Richard Coleman
boyd, rounin wrote: From: Dimitry Andric [EMAIL PROTECTED] % sudo ldd /sbin/init /sbin/init: libutil.so.3 = /lib/libutil.so.3 (0x28074000) libcrypt.so.2 = /lib/libcrypt.so.2 (0x2807f000) libc.so.5 = /lib/libc.so.5 (0x28097000) Yes, working fine here. What

Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything

2003-11-20 Thread Richard Coleman
boyd, rounin wrote: From: Christopher Vance [EMAIL PROTECTED] Personally, I think init should be static, and can't think of any way it would benefit from shared libraries. plan 9 has everything static. the kernel compiles in about 20 seconds or less -- no compression -- and you can boot it

Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything

2003-11-20 Thread boyd, rounin
plan9 doesn't count. It's so minimalistic, it's useless. well, try to think about non-minimalism when you're trying to track down a kernel bug in a zillion SLOC ... ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list

Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything

2003-11-20 Thread Garrett Wollman
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 03:37:20 +0100, boyd, rounin [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: well, try to think about non-minimalism when you're trying to track down a kernel bug in a zillion SLOC ... How about trying to think about FreeBSD when posting on the FreeBSD mailing-lists. -GAWollman

Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything

2003-11-20 Thread boyd, rounin
From: Bruce M Simpson [EMAIL PROTECTED] During my time in an investment bank, installations were usually hosed in this way by human error (systems administrators removing a file by accident, etc) ... yup, it's rare i've seen flakey h/w. but i do remember one sysadmin (when i was a contract

Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything

2003-11-20 Thread Cy Schubert
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], boyd, rounin write s: From: Bruce M Simpson [EMAIL PROTECTED] During my time in an investment bank, installations were usually hosed in this way by human error (systems administrators removing a file by accident, etc) ... yup, it's rare i've seen flakey

Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything

2003-11-19 Thread Gunther Nikl
On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 06:26:21PM -0800, Matthew Dillon wrote: :Our rationale for encouraging Gordon is as follows: : :1. 4.x upgrade path: As we approach 5-STABLE, a lot of users might want :to upgrade from 4-STABLE. Historically in 4.x, the / partition has :been very modest in

Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything

2003-11-19 Thread Jan Grant
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Garrett Wollman said: On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 18:07:32 -0500 (EST), [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: If the object is to maximally 'share', The object, AIUI, is for ~username expansion to work in the shells when the user stored somewhere defined by an

Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything

2003-11-19 Thread Jacques A. Vidrine
[cc: dropped] I suppose I should comment on this thread, since I'm closely related to at least two of the rationales mentioned for moving towards an all-dynamically-linked system. (I would prefer to stay out of this thread. In my mind we've had all these arguments in various forums months ago

Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything

2003-11-19 Thread Leo Bicknell
In a message written on Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 08:10:59AM -0600, Jacques A. Vidrine wrote: statically. Unless we are talking about /bin/sh, they probably already have to go through special measures to get a statically linked binary. Something has been bothering me about the whole /bin/sh

Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything

2003-11-19 Thread Ken Smith
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 09:19:50AM -0500, Leo Bicknell wrote: To boot a machine into single user mode you need a kernel, init, and /bin/sh (minimally). Roughly the same thing was bothering me last night. You get a chance to specify the shell when init is in the last phase of getting you to

Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything

2003-11-19 Thread Leo Bicknell
In a message written on Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 09:25:35AM -0500, Ken Smith wrote: Roughly the same thing was bothering me last night. You get a chance to specify the shell when init is in the last phase of getting you to single-user mode so you can say /rescue/sh at that point. init is another

Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything

2003-11-19 Thread Matthew Dillon
: Don't you think that people are able to change defaults if they think : thats appropriate? : : Prior to that Jordan had bumped the root partition size to 100MB : in 1.98.2.3 in March 2001. It was 50MB before then, which is too : small even for 4.x. : : Hm, then why do I have

Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything

2003-11-19 Thread Marcel Moolenaar
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 09:25:35AM -0500, Ken Smith wrote: On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 09:19:50AM -0500, Leo Bicknell wrote: To boot a machine into single user mode you need a kernel, init, and /bin/sh (minimally). Roughly the same thing was bothering me last night. You get a chance to

Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything

2003-11-19 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg
--On Wednesday, November 19, 2003 12:30 AM -0500 Garance A Drosihn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: have a: chflags ldcache /bin/sh Shouldn't that be 'chmod +t /bin/sh' ??? --lyndon ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list

Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything

2003-11-19 Thread Bruce Evans
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: set init_path=/rescue/init If dynamic root were ready to be turned on, then /rescue/init would be in the default init_path. A dynamicly linked /sbin/init just makes it harder to get to the rescue bits, so it makes sense to link init(8) staticly.

Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything

2003-11-19 Thread Ken Smith
On Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 06:27:31AM +1100, Bruce Evans wrote: set init_path=/rescue/init If dynamic root were ready to be turned on, then /rescue/init would be in the default init_path. I had that explained to me too. :-) There is a loop in sys/kern/init_main.c that probes for an init to

Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything

2003-11-19 Thread Robert Watson
On Thu, 20 Nov 2003, Bruce Evans wrote: On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: set init_path=/rescue/init If dynamic root were ready to be turned on, then /rescue/init would be in the default init_path. The fallback path only works if the exec() fails cleanly without actually

Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything

2003-11-19 Thread E.B. Dreger
SL Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 17:06:06 -0700 (MST) SL From: Scott Long SL 3. Binary security updates: there is a lot of interest in providing a SL binary update mechanism for doing security updates. Having a dynamic SL root means that vulnerable libraries can be updated without having to SL

Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything

2003-11-19 Thread E.B. Dreger
GAD Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 21:54:53 -0500 GAD From: Garance A Drosihn GAD Many freebsd users (me for one) are still living on a modem, GAD where even one bump of 1.5 meg is a significant issue... GAD GAD Remember that the issue we're talking about is security GAD updates, not full system

Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything

2003-11-19 Thread Matthew Dillon
:GAD Many freebsd users (me for one) are still living on a modem, :GAD where even one bump of 1.5 meg is a significant issue... :GAD :GAD Remember that the issue we're talking about is security :GAD updates, not full system upgrades. Everyone would want :GAD the security updates, even if they're

Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything

2003-11-19 Thread Bruce Evans
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Ken Smith wrote: On Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 06:27:31AM +1100, Bruce Evans wrote: set init_path=/rescue/init If dynamic root were ready to be turned on, then /rescue/init would be in the default init_path. I had that explained to me too. :-) There is a loop in

Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything

2003-11-19 Thread Richard Coleman
Gordon Tetlow wrote: On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 08:03:23PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: However, PAM and NSS 'tricks' really seem to be exactly that, and certainly worthy of special builds. However, that isn't necessary, yet still not building everything with a shared libc. Things like

Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything

2003-11-19 Thread Dan Nelson
In the last episode (Nov 19), Richard Coleman said: I don't really care whether everything is statically or dynamically linked. With the fast machines and huge disks these days, bloat is not much of an issue. But nss and pam need to work correctly. If the folks that are against dynamic

Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything

2003-11-19 Thread Richard Coleman
Dan Nelson wrote: In the last episode (Nov 19), Richard Coleman said: I don't really care whether everything is statically or dynamically linked. With the fast machines and huge disks these days, bloat is not much of an issue. But nss and pam need to work correctly. If the folks that are

Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything

2003-11-19 Thread Robert Watson
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Dan Nelson wrote: In the last episode (Nov 19), Richard Coleman said: I don't really care whether everything is statically or dynamically linked. With the fast machines and huge disks these days, bloat is not much of an issue. But nss and pam need to work

Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything

2003-11-19 Thread Tim Kientzle
Richard Coleman wrote: It seems /bin/sh is the real sticking point. There is a problem here: Unix systems have historically used /bin/sh for two somewhat contradictory purposes: * the system script interpreter * as a user shell The user shell must be dynamically linked in order to support

Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything

2003-11-19 Thread dyson
Tim Kientzle said: Richard Coleman wrote: It seems /bin/sh is the real sticking point. There is a problem here: Unix systems have historically used /bin/sh for two somewhat contradictory purposes: * the system script interpreter * as a user shell The user shell must be

Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything

2003-11-18 Thread dyson
Guys, Please revisit the dynamic linking for everything. The cost for using shared libs in cases like shells actually is higher than statically linking (both in memory and in time.) It appears that there is a loss of VM understanding over time. Don't

Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything

2003-11-18 Thread M. Warner Losh
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: : It really doesn't make sense to arbitrarily cut-off a : discussion especially when a decision might be incorrect. I'd say that good technical discussion about why this is wrong would be good. However, emotional

Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything

2003-11-18 Thread Dan Nelson
In the last episode (Nov 18), M. Warner Losh said: In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: : It really doesn't make sense to arbitrarily cut-off a discussion : especially when a decision might be incorrect. I'd say that good technical discussion about why this is

Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything

2003-11-18 Thread Bruce Evans
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003, M. Warner Losh wrote: In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: : It really doesn't make sense to arbitrarily cut-off a : discussion especially when a decision might be incorrect. I'd say that good technical discussion about why this is

Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything

2003-11-18 Thread dyson
M. Warner Losh said: In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: : It really doesn't make sense to arbitrarily cut-off a : discussion especially when a decision might be incorrect. I'd say that good technical discussion about why this is wrong would be good.

Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything

2003-11-18 Thread Scott Long
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: M. Warner Losh said: In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: : It really doesn't make sense to arbitrarily cut-off a : discussion especially when a decision might be incorrect. I'd say that good technical

Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything

2003-11-18 Thread dyson
Scott Long said: On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: M. Warner Losh said: In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: : It really doesn't make sense to arbitrarily cut-off a : discussion especially when a decision might be incorrect.

Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything

2003-11-18 Thread Colin Percival
At 17:06 18/11/2003 -0700, Scott Long wrote: Our rationale for encouraging Gordon is as follows: 1. 4.x upgrade path: As we approach 5-STABLE, a lot of users might want to upgrade from 4-STABLE. Historically in 4.x, the / partition has been very modest in size. One just simply cannot

Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything

2003-11-18 Thread masta
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Scott Long said: On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: M. Warner Losh said: In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: : It really doesn't make sense to arbitrarily cut-off a : discussion especially when a decision might be

Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything

2003-11-18 Thread dyson
masta said: One of ther things he might have forgot to mention is dynamic tricks releated to PAM, which sorta falls in the same league as NSS working out of the box. It was worth mentioning IMHO. I guess that I have to remember that my own goals of 'performance' and handling 'highest

Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything

2003-11-18 Thread Scott Long
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Scott Long said: On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: M. Warner Losh said: In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: : It really doesn't make sense to arbitrarily cut-off a : discussion

Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything

2003-11-18 Thread Garance A Drosihn
At 8:07 AM -0500 11/18/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It really doesn't make sense to arbitrarily cut-off a discussion especially when a decision might be incorrect. All I wanted to cut off was the claim that this decision had not been discussed publicly before. It was also annoying

Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything

2003-11-18 Thread Garance A Drosihn
At 6:42 PM -0600 11/18/03, masta wrote: Besides, I see nothing preventing anybody from building their system with static worlds, true... and there is nothing stopping anybody from putting /rescue in the PATH before /bin or /sbin. Note that this will not have the same performance as the older

Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything

2003-11-18 Thread Scott Long
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Colin Percival wrote: At 17:06 18/11/2003 -0700, Scott Long wrote: Our rationale for encouraging Gordon is as follows: 1. 4.x upgrade path: As we approach 5-STABLE, a lot of users might want to upgrade from 4-STABLE. Historically in 4.x, the / partition has

Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything

2003-11-18 Thread dyson
Scott Long said: On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The cool thing about properly implemented shared libs is that not everything has to be shared. Even the kernel supports runtime loading/addition of modules, and the NSS sounds like a good candidate for a library feature.

Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything

2003-11-18 Thread Gordon Tetlow
On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 08:03:23PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: However, PAM and NSS 'tricks' really seem to be exactly that, and certainly worthy of special builds. However, that isn't necessary, yet still not building everything with a shared libc. Things like nss_ldap (which is used

Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything

2003-11-18 Thread dyson
Gordon Tetlow said: On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 08:03:23PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: However, PAM and NSS 'tricks' really seem to be exactly that, and certainly worthy of special builds. However, that isn't necessary, yet still not building everything with a shared libc. Things

Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything

2003-11-18 Thread Matthew Dillon
:Our rationale for encouraging Gordon is as follows: : :1. 4.x upgrade path: As we approach 5-STABLE, a lot of users might want :to upgrade from 4-STABLE. Historically in 4.x, the / partition has :been very modest in size. One just simply cannot cram the bloat that :has grown in

Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything

2003-11-18 Thread Matthew Dillon
: :As far as I'm concerned, this is a non-issue. Identifying which static : binaries need to be replaced is now a solved problem, replacing them is : easy, and if binary patches are used, there is effectively no impact on : bandwidth usage either. : :Bandwidth is still a concern for a lot of

Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything

2003-11-18 Thread Matthew Dillon
:/boot has grown quite large too and threatens to be unbounded in size as :times go on. Shaving off the 30-40MB of size in /bin and /sbin can :help alleviate this, even on system formatted in 5.x partition sized. :... :This argument wasn't the most compelling one by itself, but it played a :part

Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything

2003-11-18 Thread dyson
Gang, I suspect that my position has been expressed adequately. Further discussion might become divisive, but a decision that incurs the overhead of performance or a rebuild on the default user base seems wrong (JUST MY OPINION.) It took ALOT of

Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything

2003-11-18 Thread Garance A Drosihn
At 6:38 PM -0800 11/18/03, Matthew Dillon wrote: So you are talking about 1.5 MBytes less bandwidth, which is nothing compared to the cost of doing a full install over the net. Yah, yah, /sbin too... but you get the idea. Many freebsd users (me for one) are still living on a

  1   2   >