This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-developers
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: RFC: Cygwin 64 bit?
- From: Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin at cygwin dot com>
- To: cygwin-developers at cygwin dot com
- Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 15:24:43 +0200
- Subject: Re: RFC: Cygwin 64 bit?
- References: <20110701165752.GA27001@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <20110701175153.GA16592@calimero.vinschen.de> <1309563631.3900.45.camel@YAAKOV04> <4E0EA866.2080606@cwilson.fastmail.fm> <20110702065327.GB15848@calimero.vinschen.de> <4E0FD956.3040800@cwilson.fastmail.fm> <20110703092105.GA24121@calimero.vinschen.de> <20110815172519.GF25129@calimero.vinschen.de> <20110818092014.GA5940@calimero.vinschen.de> <4E4D0F51.6060208@lysator.liu.se>
- Reply-to: cygwin-developers at cygwin dot com
On Aug 18 15:10, Peter Rosin wrote:
> Den 2011-08-18 11:20 skrev Corinna Vinschen:
> > So, nobody except Earnie is interested in the way dlopen opens shared
> > objects? Nobody even replied to the idea of the pseudo algorithm below.
> > Does really nobody care?
>
> I have one little reservation, I don't like it when adding a seemingly
> unrelated file can break old stuff. For example, let's say that I in the
> future have an application that relies on the fact that it can dlopen
> "libfoo.so" and get "cygfoo.dll". Everything works fine. If I then
> install something that brings in a real "libfoo.so" things will break.
> It's even a security problem because a carefully crafted rouge
> libfoo.so can appear to work but do unwanted stuff behind my back.
That's a good point. I don't know how critical that is. Maybe it would
help to change the order, along these lines:
incoming: libfoo.so
1. check: cygfoo.dll
2. check: libfoo.dll
3. check: libfoo.so
But, of course, regardless of the order, there's always a chance to
slip something in.
Corinna
--
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat