httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe Jr." <>
Subject Re: svn commit: r1000593 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk: CHANGES server/util_script.c
Date Fri, 24 Sep 2010 01:56:19 GMT
On 9/23/2010 6:58 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> These two are somewhat different in practice.
> When the path to the binary is omitted on the invocation/load, the shell/loader/whatever
> * executables only because of the PATH envvar


> * shared libraries usually via the system search path or in the executable/other-library's
> rpath

Typically, yes

> PATH always, LD_LIBRARY_PATH in exceptional situations

And always permitted at the shell prior to execution.  But once httpd has started,
dropping LD_LIBRARY_PATH deprives the kernel of resolving such libraries, due to
our arbitrary choice to propagate PATH, but not propagate LD_LIBRARY_PATH... leading
potentially to broken process invocations.  Does this make sense?

E.g. the choice to propagate PATH, but not LD_LIBRARY_PATH, seems foolish.  For those
who wish to argue the 'unsafety' of relocatable/dynamic path resolutions, is there
really any difference between propagating PATH but not LD_LIBRARY_PATH?

View raw message