Re: Security question: "Text file busy" overwriting executables but not shared libraries?

From: Pablo Alcaraz (
Date: Sat Oct 13 2001 - 13:40:51 EST

Whatever will be the chosen solution, it would have to allow to
overwrite all the executables and libraries files (if we have enough


- If I overwrite a shared library and then one running program crash, it
will be my fault (as system administrator) or mistake.. ;-)

- It is probable that one file library is updated within one more global
update, then probably I restart later the new demon or program. So if
the program crash I'll fix the problem eventually.

- The previous version of a file library that I am replacing can depend
on another file that the installer of the new version of the program
simply erases it. For example: depends of

but does not depend of

When I or an installer install the new program version, me or the
installer erase because the new version doesn't use it.

So, that it matters if a program can or can't access to the old version
of if was erased?

And eventually, if I decide to update a library, I would have to do it
(I suspect it would be the same case with executables files). It doesn't
the matter if the change implies a fault in a running program.

It can be that this serves so that a hacker can attack the system... or
I could hang a program when this is not my objective. Maybe a flag in
/proc/somewhere would be am useful thing:

- if it's 1, I can overwrite all the libraries and executables files (If
I've permission, etc.);

- if it's 0, I can not overwrite anything If it's in use.

I only want that everybody respect my right to do the wrong or stupid
thing. This is an system administrator right :-)


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 15 2001 - 21:00:50 EST