X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-SWARE-Spam-Status:	No, hits=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,TW_YG
X-Spam-Check-By:	sourceware.org
X-Mail-Handler:	MailHop Outbound by DynDNS
X-Report-Abuse-To:	abuse AT dyndns DOT com (see http://www.dyndns.com/services/mailhop/outbound_abuse.html for abuse reporting information)
X-MHO-User:	U2FsdGVkX1+5VDZT8MMCHIy09YoEiuTR
Date:	Wed, 7 Mar 2012 14:16:27 -0500
From:	Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please AT cygwin DOT com>
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: ldd fails when dll has no execute permissions
Message-ID:	<20120307191627.GA31636@ednor.casa.cgf.cx>
Reply-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References:	<1331147075 DOT 29625 DOT YahooMailClassic AT web36704 DOT mail DOT mud DOT yahoo DOT com>
MIME-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<1331147075.29625.YahooMailClassic@web36704.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
User-Agent:	Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id:	<cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Unsubscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

On Wed, Mar 07, 2012 at 11:04:35AM -0800, cppjavaperl wrote:
>On Wed, Mar 07, 2012 at 12:57:03 -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>I'll try to be clearer.  We obviously know how to scan an executable
>>for dependent DLLs since cygcheck does it already (and actually cygwin
>>itself does this) but we are not going to be modifying ldd to deal with
>>the case of non-executable binaries.
>
>I was not aware (until seeing it discussed elsewhere, shortly after my
>last post) that cygcheck had this capability already.
>
>So, correct me if I'm wrong, it really doesn't have anything to do with
>mirroring ldd's behavior on Linux -- It's just that you don't view it
>as a problem worth spending time on.

I tested linux and found that it failed on a binary with no executable
privileges.  I didn't go to the extra effort of trying to make dependent
.so's nonexecutable.  But, I have confirmed that it is unaffected if a
dependent .so is executable.  So I can't claim that this is completely
a linux compatibility feature.

But, yes, you are correct that I don't think it's worthwhile to rewrite
ldd to deal with this issue.

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

- Raw text -