TLS Fix for 6.1.1
archaic at linuxfromscratch.org
Sun Nov 20 15:26:02 PST 2005
On Sun, Nov 20, 2005 at 11:01:47PM +0000, Ken Moffat wrote:
> Ok, so the order in which libraries are loaded, together with a missing
> library, can trigger an assertion failure in glibc. "Doctor, it hurts
> when I delete this library which has other libraries depending on it."
In the test case the library was removed. In the live scenario there
isn't a library deleted that I can see. A library that is needed claims
to be dependant on another library which doesn't exist. However, it
seems that the dependancy is dubious as the program runs fine without
that library. This is also dependant on the environment the program sets
up as noted by the fact the setting/unsetting the LD_LIBRARY_PATH
affects whether the bug is triggered. Ultimately, it seems the bug is in
allowing a library to depend on a non-existant library. If the library
didn't exist at compile time, the compile should have failed. That's
what I see from my cursory look. But the bottom line is that this is
going to hit people building lfs-6.1.1. It's not very safe to assume
these people will only use blfs-6.1.1 for their extra-lfs needs.
Want control, education, and security from your operating system?
Hardened Linux From Scratch
More information about the lfs-dev