[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: multilib dirs and ld.so
From: |
Mike Frysinger |
Subject: |
Re: multilib dirs and ld.so |
Date: |
Wed, 22 Aug 2007 13:59:58 -0400 |
User-agent: |
KMail/1.9.7 |
On Wednesday 22 August 2007, Peter O'Gorman wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-08-22 at 06:40 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Wednesday 22 August 2007, Peter O'Gorman wrote:
> > > libsuff=`ldd conftest 2>/dev/null | awk '/libc\.so/
> > > {n=split([$]3,x,"/"); for (i=0; i < n; i++) { if (x[[i]] == "lib64")
> > > {print "64"}}}'`
> >
> > this test would still be subject to the environment of ldd ... in
> > otherwords, it is still possible to have ldd return /lib/libc.so.6 when
> > /lib is a symlink to /lib64 ...
> >
> > since the dynamic loader is the only hardcoded path, wouldnt it be better
> > to check that ? so drop the /libc\.so/ and change the $3 to $1 ...
>
> Makes sense to me. However, I think we'd need to match the first
> absolute path output from ldd because:
>
> address@hidden ]$ ldd fool
> linux-gate.so.1 => (0x009be000)
> libc.so.6 => /lib/libc.so.6 (0x00b82000)
> /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x00b65000)
i'm not sure how this sample output explains the comment that we need to match
the first absolute path ? afaik, the only absolute path ive ever seen in $1
is the ld.so as ldd shows:
(1) [DT_NEEDED form] => [resolve DT_NEEDED entry to full path] (load addr)
(2) the interpreter on its own line
(3) the linux-gate/vdso stuff
> So, how about the attached?
seems to work on my Gentoo/amd64
> Ralph, the only linux that I have access to outside of TWW are debian 32
> bit, and Fedora 32 bit, glad that your list is so much longer :)
if you're interested, i have no problem giving out access to some exoctic
Linux/Gentoo setups ... i know Ralph has a login on one of our Gentoo/parisc
boxes ...
-mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.