In the last episode (Dec 02), Tim Kientzle said: > Does that rule out NIS with a static root? > > Yes, with the current NSS/PAM implementation, although a variety of > suggestions have been floated around that would make NSS/PAM > compatible with static binaries. My personal favorite is to > implement NSS/PAM daemons to satisfy such requests. Such daemons are > surprisingly simple to implement, in my experience. I'm skeptical of > efforts to use dlopen() with static binaries; static binaries don't > have symbol tables, so there's no way to resolve references from the > dlopen()-ed library back into the executable. > > I'm curious, though. The single most convincing argument so far in > favor of a static root has been performance. Doesn't the NIS network > overhead swamp any performance gains from static linking? I suspect > you have other reasons for wanting a static root. (Or do you only > require certain executables to be static, such as /bin/sh?) The programs in /bin or /sbin that link the NIS stuff in don't use it all that often (rm, for example, will only do a user_from_uid call in the -i case for a file not owned by the deleter), and unaccessed pages in a static executable cause no performance hit. I'm not sure that any program in /bin or /sbin really does enough lookups for it to be a speed factor. Quite a few of the ones that pull in the NIS code really do it for resolving hostnames. /bin/sh is the best argument for an external NSS lookup agent, since it should be fast but occasionally may want to do NSS calls. To list programs that pull in NIS: ident /bin/* /sbin/* | awk '/^[^ ]/ { cmd=$1 } /nsdispatch/ { print cmd }' -- Dan Nelson dnelson_at_allantgroup.comReceived on Tue Dec 02 2003 - 18:21:13 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:32 UTC