At 11:42 AM 2/2/2003, Jacques A. Vidrine wrote:
Ok, I admit, no matter how it happened, an application using the wrong libc is a bad thing.On Sun, Feb 02, 2003 at 11:41:32AM -0600, Kevin Day wrote: > lrwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel 9 Feb 1 00:18 libc.so -> libc.so.5 > lrwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel 16 Jul 5 2002 libc.so.3 -> /usr/lib/libc.so ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This is seriously messed up. See below.> -r--r--r-- 1 root wheel 571480 Aug 5 13:45 libc.so.4 > -r--r--r-- 1 root wheel 836892 Feb 1 00:18 libc.so.5 > > > Shouldn't libc.so.4 have been a symlink to libc.so after a compat4x > install? In any case, doing that myself seemed to fix everything. No, this would cause you major problems. Binaries that expected the libc.so.4 interface would be calling into libc.so.5, and probably causing very strange behaviour.
But, how are things supposed to work? Apps that were using the old libc.so.4 complained about unresolved symbols(_stdoutp usually). If I removed /usr/lib/libc.so.4 they complained that they couldn't find libc, If I did create link libc.so.4 to libc.so.5 everything appeared to work just fine, but I know that's probably a fluke.
In any case, a system lockup or being able to crash other user's processes just by having the wrong libc shouldn't be possible no matter what happens.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
