On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 11:00:49PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Dmitry V. Levin:
> 
> >> So, I don't think the code is wrong. We might want to tweak the comment
> >> a bit though, to make it less definitive?
> >
> > What I'm saying is that has_soname is just a hint which is probably even
> > less reliable than has_program_interpreter.
> 
> If I recall correctly, I added the soname check to classify
> /lib64/libc.so.6 as a library, not an executable.  So it didn't come
> completely out of nowhere.

Well, /lib64/libc.so.6 is not just a library, it's also a valid executable.

If the ELF type is ET_DYN and the object is not marked as DF_1_PIE,
could we come up with a more reliable heuristics than DT_SONAME and PT_INTERP?


-- 
ldv