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 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline 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 Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , 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