On Sunday 06 March 2011 06:04:06 Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> On Saturday 05 March 2011 18:09, Tito wrote:
> > On Saturday 05 March 2011 16:51:11 Tito wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 02 March 2011 02:19:02 Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday 01 March 2011 22:08, Tobias Poschwatta wrote:
> > > > > The attached patch allows to change the name of the main busybox
> > > > > binary
> > > > > to something other than "busybox". This makes it easy to have two or
> > > > > more busybox binaries (different versions, different feature sets,
> > > > > etc.)
> > > > > installed in the same filesystem.
> > > >
> > > > It is already possible by using a suffix:
> > > >
> > > > # cp busybox busybox2
> > > > # ./busybox2
> > > > BusyBox v1.19.0.git (2011-03-01 16:23:40 CET) multi-call binary.
> > > > Copyright (C) 1998-2009 Erik Andersen, Rob Landley, Denys Vlasenko
> > > > and others. Licensed under GPLv2.
> > > > See source distribution for full notice.
> > > >
> > > > Usage: busybox [function] [arguments]...
> > > > or: busybox --list[-full]
> > > > or: function [arguments]...
> > > >
> > > > BusyBox is a multi-call binary that combines many common Unix
> > > > utilities into a single executable. Most people will create a
> > > > link to busybox for each function they wish to use and BusyBox
> > > > will act like whatever it was invoked as.
> > > >
> > > > Currently defined functions:
> > > > [, [[, acpid, add-shell, addgroup, adduser ...
> > > >
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > > while inspecting the behaviour of busybox --install -s in a chroot
> > > environment I've noticed something that looks wrong to me:
> > >
> > >
> > > lrwxrwxrwx 1 0 0 14 Mar 5 14:02 addgroup -> /proc/self/exe
> > > lrwxrwxrwx 1 0 0 14 Mar 5 14:02 adduser -> /proc/self/exe
> > > lrwxrwxrwx 1 0 0 14 Mar 5 14:02 ash -> /proc/self/exe
> > > lrwxrwxrwx 1 0 0 14 Mar 5 14:02 base64 -> /proc/self/exe
> > > -rwxr-xr-x 1 0 0 700492 Mar 5 13:55 bash
> > > -rwxr-xr-x 1 0 0 724192 Mar 5 13:56 busybox
> > > lrwxrwxrwx 1 0 0 14 Mar 5 14:02 cat -> /proc/self/exe
> > > lrwxrwxrwx 1 0 0 14 Mar 5 14:02 catv -> /proc/self/exe
> > > lrwxrwxrwx 1 0 0 14 Mar 5 14:02 chattr -> /proc/self/exe
> > > lrwxrwxrwx 1 0 0 14 Mar 5 14:02 chgrp -> /proc/self/exe
> > > lrwxrwxrwx 1 0 0 14 Mar 5 14:02 chmod -> /proc/self/exe
> > > lrwxrwxrwx 1 0 0 14 Mar 5 14:02 chown -> /proc/self/exe
> > > lrwxrwxrwx 1 0 0 14 Mar 5 14:02 cp -> /proc/self/exe
> > > lrwxrwxrwx 1 0 0 14 Mar 5 14:02 cpio -> /proc/self/exe
> > > lrwxrwxrwx 1 0 0 14 Mar 5 14:02 cttyhack -> /proc/self/exe
> > > lrwxrwxrwx 1 0 0 14 Mar 5 14:02 date -> /proc/self/exe
> > >
> > >
> > > all links point to /proc/self/exe as bb_busybox_exec_path is used :
> > >
> > > config BUSYBOX_EXEC_PATH
> > > string "Path to BusyBox executable"
> > > default "/proc/self/exe"
> > > help
> > > When Busybox applets need to run other busybox applets, BusyBox
> > > sometimes needs to exec() itself. When the /proc filesystem is
> > > mounted, /proc/self/exe always points to the currently running
> > > executable. If you haven't got /proc, set this to wherever you
> > > want to run BusyBox from.
> > >
> > > This seems not to be a sane default here as
> > > 1) was not able to make this work in a chrooted env
> > > 2) in case of failure xmalloc_readlink symlinks
> > > point to /proc/self/exe
> > > 3) it works only if /proc/ is mounted
> > >
> > > I would suggest rather than doing it automagically
> > > as this setp is done only at setup time (from a known path i suppose)
> > > to enforce that the busybox binary is called on the command line
> > > with the full path, the pros are:
> > >
> > > 1) no need for /proc
> > > 2) name of busybox could be changed and different busybox
> > > executables could be used at the same time.
> > > 3) works in my chroot env.
> > > 4) it is simple.
> > >
> > > if (ENABLE_FEATURE_INSTALLER && strcmp(argv[1], "--install") == 0) {
> > > int use_symbolic_links = (argv[2] && strcmp(argv[2], "-s") ==
> > > 0);
> > > if (!strchr(argv[0], '/'))
> > > bb_error_msg_and_die("Please call %s with the full
> > > path", argv[0]);
> > > /* busybox --install [-s] [DIR]: */
> > > /* -s: make symlinks */
> > > /* DIR: directory to install links to */
> > > install_links(argv[0], use_symbolic_links, (argv[3]) ? argv[3]
> > > : NULL);
> > > return 0;
> > > }
> > >
> > > Hints, critics, improvements are welcome.
> > > Ciao,
> > > Tito
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Minor fix to catch ./busybox.
> > Attached patch v2.
> >
> > if (ENABLE_FEATURE_INSTALLER && strcmp(argv[1], "--install") == 0) {
> > int use_symbolic_links = (argv[2] && strcmp(argv[2], "-s") ==
> > 0);
> > if (strncmp(argv[0], "./", 2) == 0 || !strchr(argv[0], '/'))
> > bb_error_msg_and_die("Please call %s with the full
> > path", argv[0]);
>
> What about ../abc/./def/busybox etc?
Ops, have not tought about it, OTH as I was asking the user
for a full path and It is his responsibility to provide a correct one.
> > /* busybox --install [-s] [DIR]: */
> > /* -s: make symlinks */
> > /* DIR: directory to install links to */
> > install_links(argv[0], use_symbolic_links, (argv[3]) ? argv[3]
> > : NULL);
> > return 0;
> > }
>
>
> How about this?
>
> http://git.busybox.net/busybox/commit/?id=4a2a86d5e7e7bf284a31af604a738dfa1f1a2240
>
Will fail on ./busybox or bin/busybox, etc
+ if (argv[0][0] == '/')
+ busybox = argv[0];
+ else
+ busybox = bb_busybox_exec_path;
and will set the path to /proc/self/exe
and will not work in the end.
I wonder why should /proc/self/exe be
a sane default?
Ciao,
Tito
_______________________________________________
busybox mailing list
busybox@busybox.net
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
