[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: root's shell
Alexander L. Belikoff wrote:
> Sorry, if I was not clear - I was talking about statically-linked
> *copies*, not statically-linked replacement. In no way should the end
> users suffer from another copy of libc in a RAM. :-) Only if something
> critical happened, the sysadmin should be able to run fsck/shell/ls
> (at least).
That makes more sense. Just to remind you that as far as I've
seen (maybe I'm wrong?), that discussion began when someone said
that csh/tcsh is evil and root should use a static binary of /bin/sh.
> > You should have had libraries on the emergency disk - that's how
> > I'd define an emergancy tool - "something which can be usefull and
> > self-contained when everything else breaks".
> >
>
> I agree, except that, according to the SunOS administration manual
> (back then), the situation when libc.so gets corrupted was considered
> as a 'major system corruption' and it was suggested to reinstall the
> system - not a big deal for those having a CD-ROM drive or an
> appropriate tape drive, but a major pain in the ass for us, since we
> didn't have any (you know, it was not a nicest time - the middle of
> Perestroika in Russia ;-)
In that case, how practical would it have been for you to obtain
static binaries of these utilities? And how much more difficult/
easier would it be for you to keep an extra copy of the shared libs?
> In any case, I perfectly agree with you in that the primary
> maintenance tool must be a rescue disk with all needed stuff. But I
> prefer covering my ass by making a system *a bit more
> crash-recoverable* by having statically-linked copies of the shell and
> adm tools.
That's my point - I'm not sure how much more robust is your system
with static binaries vs. another copy of the shared libs.
--Amos
--Amos Shapira | "Of course Australia was marked for
| glory, for its people had been chosen
amos@gezernet.co.il | by the finest judges in England."
| -- Anonymous
References: