prelink should not mess with running executables

[Chris Adams]

Once upon a time, Sam Varshavchik <mrsam at courier-mta.com> said:
> Chris Adams writes:
> >Once upon a time, Sam Varshavchik <mrsam at courier-mta.com> said:
> >> Chris Adams writes:
> >> >Is there any value in this "additional check" (that nobody else
> >> >apparently does)?  Do you not trust the kernel's credential handling?
> >>
> >> I certainly trust it. But just because I trust it, it doesn't mean that 
> >any
> >> additional checks have no value.
> >
> >Sure it does.  If the credentials are always correct, additional checks
> >past that are a waste of cycles.
> 
> You feel absolutely confident that just because you can't think of any 
> value  of additional checks, there cannot possibly be any.
> 
> You're wrong.

Prove it.

When I'm building a wall for a house, I follow the plan that is drawn up
by others that works in a common fashion.  I don't arbitrarily put a
diagonal brace in a standard wall section just as an additional check.
I follow others' years of design experience and just build a normal
wall.

What use case is there in determining an exact binary is being used?

-- 
Chris Adams <cmadams at hiwaay.net>
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.