Rationale for giving .so files +x
Andreas Jaeger
aj@suse.de
Fri Jun 15 06:17:00 GMT 2007
More information about the Binutils mailing list
Fri Jun 15 06:17:00 GMT 2007
- Previous message (by thread): Rationale for giving .so files +x
- Next message (by thread): Rationale for giving .so files +x
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> writes: > On Thursday 14 June 2007, Serge van den Boom wrote: >> What's the rationale for setting the executable bit on shared object files? > > shared object codes include executable code so in order to map them with > execute permissions, you need the +x bit This is not needed under Linux, it works fine if you remove the +x. The dynamic linker in glibc takes care of it. But there's one exception: You can really execute on Linux libc.so, try: /lib/libc.so.6 Andreas -- Andreas Jaeger, Director Platform/openSUSE, aj@suse.de SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 188 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://sourceware.org/pipermail/binutils/attachments/20070615/96f90ea7/attachment.sig>
- Previous message (by thread): Rationale for giving .so files +x
- Next message (by thread): Rationale for giving .so files +x
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Binutils mailing list