On February 11, 2015 2:36:59 AM CST, Andrew Haley <a...@redhat.com> wrote: >On 11/02/15 00:41, Cyd Haselton wrote: >> >>> >>> I'd rather leave it on-list for future reference. The best thing >>> would be for libfakechroot to be linked against libdl: that way, >when >>> dlopen() was called the link would be correctly satisfied. If that >>> isn't possible (if dlopen() doesn't work or is incompatible) then >>> libfakechroot shouldn't export the symbol for dlopen(). >> >> After experimenting with several builds of the fakechroot library I >> can't see how this would be possible. Even when libdl is linked in, >> hiding dlopen guarantees that the resulting library doesn't >> intercept dlopen calls, which breaks the fakechroot environment and >> removing the fakechroot dlopen code also ensures that dlopen calls >> aren't intercepted. > >I don't get it. If libdl is linked in, why would you hide dlopen() ? > >Andrew.
libdl was linked in the original, buggy libfakechroot...the one that exported dlopen(). -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
