prelink should not mess with running executables

[Sam Varshavchik]

Michal Schmidt writes:

> On 07/18/2012 12:35 AM, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
>> Really? An example of a "symbolic link pointing to a non-existent
>> pathname"?
>>
>> lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root 15 Jul 17 18:02 /dev/stderr → /proc/self/fd/2
>> lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root 15 Jul 17 18:02 /dev/stdin → /proc/self/fd/0
>> lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root 15 Jul 17 18:02 /dev/stdout → /proc/self/fd/1
>>
>> You mean to tell me that none of those symlinks exist? Could've fooled me:
>
> Cut the sarcasm.
> In your example they existed, but generally they do not have to. Try this:
>
> $ while :; do echo hello; sleep 10; done > /tmp/dumbdumbdumb &
> [1] 32595
> $ rm /tmp/dumbdumbdumb
> $ readlink /proc/32595/fd/1
> /tmp/dumbdumbdumb (deleted)
> $ cat /proc/32595/fd/1
> hello
> hello
>
> See? We have an actual magical symlink that points to a non-existing path  
> and yet it can still be opened.

Ok. I was wondering if there was any other case similar to /proc/pid/exe  
where you have a symlink from /proc pointing to a non-existent file, yet  
still can be opened.

You said yes, and you offered a different symlink from /proc pointing to a  
non-existent file, as an example.

Ok, so we've established that /proc symlinks have the ability to do that.  
Great. Now, anything else?
-------------- 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/20120718/86e2e90f/attachment-0001.sig>