On Friday 31 October 2008 03:21:29 Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote: > On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 12:56:42PM -0500, Rob Landley wrote: > >On Wednesday 29 October 2008 14:49:59 Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> I'm a bit puzzled about ldd, i admit: > >> > >> Not sure if running the binary is such a good idea. Thoughts? > > > >Sounds like you're using the glibc version of ldd, which has always run > > No, i'm using uClibc's ldd. > > >binaries when trying to figure out what they link to. (This is one of the > >reasons ld-linux.so needed the executable bit set, I forget the details > > and archive.org is being stroppy. I'm fairly certain I'm not a spambot, > > but try telling them that...) > > > >The uClibc version worked like readelf last I checked, and it would be > >criminally stupid to change that. > > Look at utils/ldd.c::find_dependancies() > #ifdef __LDSO_LDD_SUPPORT__ > if (we could potentially run the binary) > execle(...) > > I'm resisting to change those "dependancy" to dependency for now..
Config option LDSO_LDD_SUPPORT is under General Library Settings. It makes the uClibc ldd work like the glibc ldd. I thought this option merely added the security hole to ld-uClibc.so so that you could use it to bypass NOEXEC mounts, but apparently it also makes the uClibc ldd incredibly stupid as well. Do not select this option. I don't know what happens if you run gnu ldd on a program that does an rm -rf / when run with no arguments, and I'm not sure I _want_ to know. Readelf gives you all the data you actually _need_; ldd merely formats the output more conveniently. There's no need to run the binary, and lots of reasons not to. Rob _______________________________________________ uClibc mailing list [email protected] http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
