3 ms·
Sure, but your solution supposes some kind of linking cop program overseeing the linking process, and who is going to keep the linking cop honest?
by someguydave 3y ago
Sure, but your solution supposes some kind of linking cop program overseeing the linking process, and who is going to keep the linking cop honest?
- Cloudef 3y agoI mean dynamic loader is part of the base system and you generally trust the compiler and linker you build the program with. If any of those are malicious, you've already lost the game.
- someguydave 3y agoAsking a programmer to trust his own compiler and libraries which he can personally analyze and vouch for (static linking) is much different than asking the programmer to vouch for the dynamic libraries present on some given user’s machine.
- FeepingCreature 3y agoYes, the dynamic linker (/lib/ld-linux.so.2), which is one relatively short program as opposed to thousands of big ones. :) The point is, there's simply no usecase to require or even allow the program to do IFUNC substitution freely on its own. A programming framework should not opt the developer in to capabilities they don't want or need. Much of C-likes' complexity arises from unnecessary, mandated capabilities.