Re: bin/72138: libc.so.5 isn't installed in a safe way

On Tue, Sep 28, 2004 at 10:38:23AM +0200, Matthias Andree wrote:
> Ruslan Ermilov <ru_at_FreeBSD.org> writes:
> 
> > On Tue, Sep 28, 2004 at 12:33:51PM +0800, Xin LI wrote:
> >> (-CURRENT is cc'ed for a boarder review)
> >> 
> >> I fell like this idea, and here is the patch for review:
> >> 
> >> Index: Makefile
> >> ===================================================================
> >> RCS file: /r/ncvs/src/lib/libc/Makefile,v
> >> retrieving revision 1.52
> >> diff -u -r1.52 Makefile
> >> --- Makefile	14 May 2004 12:04:29 -0000	1.52
> >> +++ Makefile	28 Sep 2004 04:30:26 -0000
> >> _at__at_ -16,6 +16,7 _at__at_
> >>  CFLAGS+=-I${.CURDIR}/include -I${.CURDIR}/../../include
> >>  CFLAGS+=-I${.CURDIR}/${MACHINE_ARCH}
> >>  CLEANFILES+=tags
> >> +SHLINSTALLFLAGS+=	-S
> >>  INSTALL_PIC_ARCHIVE=	yes
> >>  PRECIOUSLIB=	yes
> >>  
> > I like the idea so much, that I suggest this instead:
> >
> > %%%
> > Index: bsd.lib.mk
> > ===================================================================
> > RCS file: /home/ncvs/src/share/mk/bsd.lib.mk,v
> > retrieving revision 1.160
> > diff -u -r1.160 bsd.lib.mk
> > --- bsd.lib.mk	7 May 2004 09:58:36 -0000	1.160
> > +++ bsd.lib.mk	28 Sep 2004 07:13:18 -0000
> > _at__at_ -187,9 +187,12 _at__at_
> >  
> >  .if !target(install)
> >  
> > -.if defined(PRECIOUSLIB) && !defined(NOFSCHG)
> > +.if defined(PRECIOUSLIB)
> > +.if !defined(NOFSCHG)
> >  SHLINSTALLFLAGS+= -fschg
> >  .endif
> > +SHLINSTALLFLAGS+= -S
> > +.endif
> >  
> >  _INSTALLFLAGS:=	${INSTALLFLAGS}
> >  .for ie in ${INSTALLFLAGS_EDIT}
> > %%%
> 
> I must say that although Xin's patch will certainly work well to address
> my original PR, I like Ruslan's idea better, because it appears to work
> for all precious libraries, not just libc. But there is more "precious"
> stuff, /bin, /sbin, /boot (including kernel), /rescue (I was glad I had
> the latter, otherwise my system would have been dead.)
> 
> Using -S for the whole system might be a bit slow without softupdates
> (or async, which I do not favor) but would not be a bad idea from a
> robustness point of view which I personally prefer.
> 
FWIW, I don't believe that using -S adds much overhead, no.
You can check it easily, by doing two installworlds, one with
INSTALL="install -S", and one without it.


Cheers,
-- 
Ruslan Ermilov
ru_at_FreeBSD.org
FreeBSD committer