Re: large binary, why not strip ?

[Matthew Seaman]

Paul B. Mahol wrote:

On 11/26/08, Matthew Seaman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Matthew Seaman wrote:

Kris Kennaway wrote:

Bonus points if you come up with a patch to do this: in most cases it
will be a simple matter of changing the port's do-install: target to
use INSTALL_* macros instead of cp/bsdtar etc.  This would be a good
project to get some familiarity with the ports tree.

Would it be worthwhile to add a test and warning that all installed
binaries
have not been stripped to the 'security-check' target in bsd.port.mk?
That's
not really what that target was intended for (feeping creaturism alert!)
but
it's the obvious place to put such a test.

Probably cleaner to create a whole new target, but that's going to
duplicate
some code.

Hmmmm... I shall work up some patches, probably over the weekend, so
there's
something substantive to talk about.

Done: ports/129210

For the record, I also discovered that, contrary to what I said earlier,
there is  apparently one class of binary object that will not work correctly
if stripped: kernel loadable modules.

Kernel loadable modules are already stripped (--strip-debug).

KLDs aren't stripped in a way that file(1) recognises:



Unfortunately file(1) seems to be about the only tool available to test
a priori whether a binary object is stripped or not.  It's possible
that objdump(1) or readelf(1) could do a similar thing, but I can't
work it out from those man pages.

        Cheers,

        Matthew

--
Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil.                   7 Priory Courtyard
                                                 Flat 3
PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey     Ramsgate
                                                 Kent, CT11 9PW

happy-idiot-talk:/boot/kernel:% file if_em.ko if_em.ko: ELF 32-bit LSB shared object, Intel 80386, version 1 (FreeBSD), dynamically linked, not stripped

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature