prelink should not mess with running executables

[Tomas Mraz]

On Thu, 2012-07-19 at 07:10 -0400, Sam Varshavchik wrote: 
> Andrew Haley writes:
> 
> > On 07/18/2012 11:37 PM, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
> > >
> > > How do you know that the server that gave you a seemingly verified SSL
> > > certificate, that checks out, isn't an impostor that managed to crack the
> > > right prime.
> >
> > Because we know that to do that is at the present, time
> > computationally intractable.  So, it's very unlikely that it's
> > happened unless your opponent is prepared to spend huge resources on
> > you.
> 
> But it's not impossible. Same thing here. It is "very unlikely" that  
> /proc/pid/exe gives you the pathname that was used to start the executable.  
> But just because there are marginal situations where it might not work does  
> not invalidate its value-added benefits.

Actually if you normally open the /proc/pid/exe and read it, it will
give you the exact executable that was used to start the process with
the pid. That readlink will not give you path to the executable, but the
old path with '(deleted)' is very reasonable too. So what's the problem
with /proc again?

-- 
Tomas Mraz
No matter how far down the wrong road you've gone, turn back.
                                              Turkish proverb