On Tuesday, March 10, 2015 11:30:44 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 10, 2015 08:33:54 AM Josh Boyer wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 8:47 AM, Josh Boyer <jwbo...@fedoraproject.org>
wrote:
> > > Hi All,
> > >
> > > Commit 5c1de006e8e66 (cpupower Makefile change to help run the tool
> > > without 'make install') added an rpath to the cpupower binary. From
> > > what I can understand, this is to make it easier to run cpupower from
> > > the local build directory without having to run make install. It does
> > > accomplish that, but it also leaves the binary with the rpath in it
> > > which is considered bad practice. It also causes cpupower to fail in
> > > rpmbuild with the following error:
> > >
> > > ERROR 0004: file '/usr/bin/cpupower' contains an insecure rpath './'
> > > in [./]
> > > error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.A6u26r (%install)
> > >
> > > Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.A6u26r (%install)
> > >
> > > I understand the want for eased development, but couldn't people just
> > > set LD_LIBRARY_PATH instead?
> >
> > No comments on this? Should I just send a revert patch instead?
I agree adding . as library path was not a good idea.
This probably is also a potential security issue.
What I do is building the libraries statically into the binary when
testing. I will send a Makefile change introducing a static = true/false
variable to do that easily.
> You can do that.
Thanks for sending the revert, it's the right thing to do.
Thomas
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
