On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 07:59:15PM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote: > On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 6:53 PM, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal at redhat.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 01, 2012 at 02:52:25PM +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote: > >> On Thu, Nov 01, 2012 at 10:43:04AM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote: > >> > >> > So I think this does satisfy the requirement matthew specified. Isn't it? > >> > Matthew, what do you think? > >> > >> Sure, if you can ensure that. You'll need to figure out how to get the > >> build system to sign the userspace binaries and you'll need to ensure > >> that they're statically linked and don't dlopen anything (including the > >> nsswitch modules), but otherwise that should work. > >> > > > > [ CC peter jones ] > > > > Ok, so even if we build kexec-tools statically with glibc, we have the > > issue of name service switch modules. glibc will still do dlopen on > > these modules. So what are options now. > > > > - Sign glibc and associated shared libraries. Do not allow unsigned > > shared library to dynamically link with signed executable. > > > > - Peter mentioned that work with uClibc for kexec-tools. > > > > I personally think that however hard it is but first option sounds like > > a long term solution. We might have more user space processes which > > we might have to trust a generic solution will help with that. For example, > > we might have to sign and trust qemu at some point of time. > > > > Are there other ways of handing glibc issue? > > > > Have you seen http://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/FAQ - "Even statically > linked programs need some shared libraries which is not acceptable for > me. What can I do?" Probably, worth trying. Yes I have seen this. IIUC, it says that build libc with -enable-static-nss and then individual programs need to statically build against the nss modules program will use. I think building libc with -enable-static-nss part will be unacceptable for general server as other programs would like to make use of the existing nss functionality. Thanks Vivek
