Fwd: Re: zlib-1.1.4 out - security fix
listbox at pole-position.org
Wed Mar 13 13:53:18 PST 2002
>>> The short answer to WHY is performance, shared libs are slower. SSH and
>>> gzip is two of the pretty few programs that I really WANT to have as
>>> optimized as possible.
>> Is the performance hit really that big?
> Um, shared libs are slower? I doubt that. What about shared libs makes
> them slower? If you are talking about load times, shared libs are
Sorry, I *really* should have mentioned that this performance penalty is
something I "have read about" in "some places". Now, with my hands
against the wall, I'm really not sure if a) it is significant and b) it
really affects Linux and not just some other legacy UNIX versions.
Trying to clear this up, I just searched the sources I thought were
those "some places", namely gzip and gpg, but I didn't find anything at
all mentioning this issue. I tried searching the web but still couldn't
find the statements I remember reading. I did however find some info on
SunOS/Solaris that make me think the whole thing was never related to
Linux but maybe some really old Solaris versions. Like over 10 years
This boils down to three things:
1. I'm happy again. When I did read about the penalty hits one or two
years ago, I was disappointed since shared libs are really a Good
Idea[tm]. Now it seems it isn't that big a problem on Linux.
2. I'm puzzled. So why on earth do some programs link zlib statically?
Maybe because there are more people confused just like me, thinking
things are like they used to be in the good old 80's :-)
3. I'm embarassed. I hate when people pollutes lists with misinformation
that looks like facts. I do appologize.
Anyone with more knowledge on this, please fill in!
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-security' in the subject header of the message
More information about the lfs-security