And you're talking about "security"?
https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ub...er/028612.html :
Code:
mksh (39.1-2) unstable; urgency=low * debian/rules: build mksh-small without floating point support also, because it�s ? huge and ? buggy in dietlibc
Code:
Beware! Much of this code is untested! Someday, we will have a test suite and everything will be just fine.
Yes, they say a bit about security, and there is some validity to complaints about glibc bloat and dynamic linking (I've seen a dietlibc proponent claim that the fact that libnss is dynamic allows manipulation of the environment to have uncontrollable effects, which is accurate if you know what LD_LIBRARY_PATH and LD_PRELOAD can do...), but...for reasons best expressed in the first two links and that last quote, use anything but dietlibc.
uClibc is reasonably tested, musl is reasonably clean and well-audited, klibc is fairly bug-free (and also feature-free, unfortunately), bionic and variants have a measure of support and testing thanks to Google, newlibc has testing and support from RedHat.
I should mention that one reason for musl being developed was to provide a lightweight and correct libc with a stable ABI; the ABI is the big downfall for most alternatives.
Leave a comment: