Andrew Haley writes:
On 07/18/2012 11:37 PM, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
>
> How do you know that the server that gave you a seemingly verified SSL
> certificate, that checks out, isn't an impostor that managed to crack the
> right prime.
Because we know that to do that is at the present, time
computationally intractable. So, it's very unlikely that it's
happened unless your opponent is prepared to spend huge resources on
you.
But it's not impossible. Same thing here. It is "very unlikely" that
/proc/pid/exe gives you the pathname that was used to start the executable.
But just because there are marginal situations where it might not work does
not invalidate its value-added benefits.
> If what prelink is doing is hunky-dory, then why is it that its
> wrapper has special-case band-aid init?
What's a special-case band-aid about it? It looks perfectly
reasonable to me. Why wouldn't you restart init?
Why would you?If there's nothing wrong with with overwriting an executable,
and, after all, that's how UNIX worked forever, then why bother restarting
init?
> That's a defacto acknowledgement that prelink is broken, and
this is
> just a lame, pathetic coverup for one of the breaks.
But this is nothing to do with prelink. It's to do with your totally
bogus assumption that /proc/self/exe is a reliable way to get the
binary image of the executable that started current process. It
Well, that's only what proc(5) says it is. And it works every time. Until
prelink overwrites the executable.
isn't, it never has been, and it never will be. And this is true
If the contents of the /proc/self/exe symlink are something random and
unrelated, then I think that proc(5) needs to be updated to reflect that.
not just because of prelink; even without prelink you'll still
have
to be able to cope with this situation.
The basic principle of robust programming is that you must expect the
unlikely and treat it as normal. This is a classic case of that
principle.
No, this is a classic case of denying the problem's root cause, and blaming
something else, which exposes the problem.
The iphone does not have an antenna problem, people are just holding it
wrong.