From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751176AbbCKLyC (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Mar 2015 07:54:02 -0400 Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:50299 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750770AbbCKLyA (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Mar 2015 07:54:00 -0400 From: Thomas Renninger To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Josh Boyer , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , "sriram@marirs.net.in" , Linux PM list , "Linux-Kernel@Vger. Kernel. Org" Subject: Re: Bad rpath in cpupower with 4.0-rcX Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 12:53:57 +0100 Message-ID: <3001692.z661NIszxI@skinner> User-Agent: KMail/4.14.5 (Linux/3.16.7-7-desktop; KDE/4.14.5; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <15697793.jrEQ5UURAe@vostro.rjw.lan> References: <20150306134745.GC4801@hansolo.redhat.com> <15697793.jrEQ5UURAe@vostro.rjw.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tuesday, March 10, 2015 11:30:44 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Tuesday, March 10, 2015 08:33:54 AM Josh Boyer wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 8:47 AM, Josh Boyer wrote: > > > Hi All, > > > > > > Commit 5c1de006e8e66 (cpupower Makefile change to help run the tool > > > without 'make install') added an rpath to the cpupower binary. From > > > what I can understand, this is to make it easier to run cpupower from > > > the local build directory without having to run make install. It does > > > accomplish that, but it also leaves the binary with the rpath in it > > > which is considered bad practice. It also causes cpupower to fail in > > > rpmbuild with the following error: > > > > > > ERROR 0004: file '/usr/bin/cpupower' contains an insecure rpath './' > > > in [./] > > > error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.A6u26r (%install) > > > > > > Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.A6u26r (%install) > > > > > > I understand the want for eased development, but couldn't people just > > > set LD_LIBRARY_PATH instead? > > > > No comments on this? Should I just send a revert patch instead? I agree adding . as library path was not a good idea. This probably is also a potential security issue. What I do is building the libraries statically into the binary when testing. I will send a Makefile change introducing a static = true/false variable to do that easily. > You can do that. Thanks for sending the revert, it's the right thing to do. Thomas