3 ms·
Even if you were right about the bc breaks, I think it's still better to apply a security patch to a stable version of glibc and just deploy that, instead of en
by 0x0 11y ago
Even if you were right about the bc breaks, I think it's still better to apply a security patch to a stable version of glibc and just deploy that, instead of ensuring every ELF file on the system is updated.
- quotemstr 11y ago> ensuring every ELF file on the system is updated. You're right. Keep in mind, though, that we're living in a world where people ship applications built with dependencies like this: deps = http://some.random.server.ru/some-library:1.4.4 and installation software like this: curl http://lol.hackme.cn | sudo bash Do you expect people to really understand the nuances of security updates?
- 0x0 11y agoI do expect them to understand that, when they are arguing against it. :)
- sdijf8sdhf 11y agoI agree, and I think this approach works very well on Windows, where Microsoft has a serious commitment to backwards compatibility at any cost. But in my experience, there wasn't anywhere near the same level of appreciation for binary compatibility in the Linux userland (though Torvalds clearly cares about this in the kernel).