From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Sun Nov 23 19:54:53 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E705716A4CE
	for <current@freebsd.org>; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 19:54:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sbk-gw.sibnet.ru (sbk-gw.sibnet.ru [217.70.96.146])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60E6543FF2
	for <current@freebsd.org>; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 19:54:41 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from stranger@sberbank.sibnet.ru)
Received: from sbk-gw.sibnet.ru (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sbk-gw.sibnet.ru (8.12.9p2/8.12.9) with ESMTP id hAO3sAoV063301;
	Mon, 24 Nov 2003 09:54:10 +0600 (NOVT)
	(envelope-from stranger@sberbank.sibnet.ru)
Received: from localhost (stranger@localhost)hAO3sAfA063298;
	Mon, 24 Nov 2003 09:54:10 +0600 (NOVT)
	(envelope-from stranger@sberbank.sibnet.ru)
X-Authentication-Warning: sbk-gw.sibnet.ru: stranger owned process doing -bs
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 09:54:10 +0600 (NOVT)
From: "Maxim M. Kazachek" <stranger@sberbank.sibnet.ru>
X-X-Sender: stranger@sbk-gw.sibnet.ru
To: David Wolfskill <david@catwhisker.org>
In-Reply-To: <200311240343.hAO3hWmU002266@bunrab.catwhisker.org>
Message-ID: <20031124094608.F63263@sbk-gw.sibnet.ru>
References: <200311240343.hAO3hWmU002266@bunrab.catwhisker.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_01 autolearn=ham 
	version=2.60
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	sbk-gw.sibnet.ru
cc: current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 03:54:54 -0000

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003, David Wolfskill wrote:

>>Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 09:34:08 +0600 (NOVT)
>>From: "Maxim M. Kazachek" <stranger@sberbank.sibnet.ru>
>
>>	So, imagine, i'm accidentally deleted /bin with your most wanted
>>static sh... And, of course, due to static nature of /bin/sh it was
>>removed from /rescue? Nothing will protect you from shooting in the leg,
>>neither static linking, nor assumption that /lib is OK.
>
>So go ahead and make /bin/sh also have a (hard) link to /rescue/sh.
>Then the referenced action merely decrements the link count, and the
>executable itself doesn't go away.
>
>Sure, you could be more imaginative with foot-shooting, but the stated
>problem is really easy to avoid.
>
>Peace,
>david       (reluctant to contribute to this thread....)
>--
>David H. Wolfskill				david@catwhisker.org
>If you want true virus-protection for your PC, install a non-Microsoft OS
>on it.  Plausible candidates include FreeBSD, Linux, NetBSD, OpenBSD, and
>Solaris (in alphabetical order).

	I'm a real masochist, and removed /rescue/sh /sbin/sh whatsoever.
And after that will begin complain, that FreeBSD is ugly, non bullet-proof
operating system... :-)
	But, in fact, as I can remember, all /rescue stuff is one
hadlinked executable. I don't think that hardlinking /bin/sh into /rescue
would be nice idea... IMHO it's not clear.

   Sincerely, Maxim M. Kazachek
       mailto:stranger@sberbank.sibnet.ru
       mailto:stranger@fpm.ami.nstu.ru