prelink should not mess with running executables

[Sam Varshavchik]

Andrew Haley writes:

> On 07/18/2012 02:25 AM, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
>>
> Not exactly.  You said:
>
> > Can you explain, then, the "correctly" approach by which an
> > executable can affirm whether another pid is either running the same
> > executable, or the post-prelinked version of the same
> > executable. Anyone who suggests readlinking /proc/self/exe, then
> > the other /proc/pid/exe, and comparing them sans any hardcoded "
> > (deleted)" suffix is going to get only howls of laughter, in
> > response.
>
> But that's not a use case.  There's no way to know why you want to do
> this: why you care that another process is running the exact same
> executable.

Because that's the only process I want to talk to. A form of authentication,  
which I already explained. More than once.

And we've been over this. Right about now, if history's a guide, some self- 
appointed expert is going to start wagging his finger, mumbling something  
about ptrace. And completely missing the point.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20120718/20bea2c2/attachment.sig>