What a load of FUD about updating dynamic libraries not actually fixing the code without rebuilding the dependent executables. Symbol versioning does not break

What a load of FUD about updating dynamic libraries not actually fixing the code without rebuilding the dependent executables. Symbol versioning does not break things in this way. If you've replaced your only libc.so with a fixed one, there is no other libc.so for dynamically linked executables to link with at runtime. If the new one brought a needed fix, the bug is fixed everywhere using libc.so. It's not like the new library bundles old bits to fulfill old versions of symbols, that's madness. The only way I can see someone getting into a situation implied by the article is when they install multiple versions of a shared library simultaneously, keeping vulnerable versions around, and have executables continuing to use the old copies. This is an administrative failure, and says nothing of dynamic linking's value.