This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
ld-auto-import memory bug fixing
- To: "Binutils" <binutils at sources dot redhat dot com>
- Subject: ld-auto-import memory bug fixing
- From: "Ralf Habacker" <Ralf dot Habacker at freenet dot de>
- Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 00:06:32 +0200
Hi,
currently I'm trying to fix the bug described in
http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/2001-06/msg00742.html
With that I have a question:
When linking a dll with g++, it calls collect which calls ld, but ld is not in
the ps list.
Can anynone tell me how I can even though debug ld with gdb ?
Regards
Ralf
PS: For those, who doesn't know how the auto-import feature works, see below
/************************************************************************
Auto-import feature by Paul Sokolovsky
Quick facts:
1. With this feature on, DLL clients can import variables from DLL
without any concern from their side (for example, without any source
code modifications).
2. This is done completely in bounds of the PE specification (to be fair,
there's a place where it pokes nose out of, but in practise it works).
So, resulting module can be used with any other PE compiler/linker.
3. Auto-import is fully compatible with standard import method and they
can be mixed together.
4. Overheads: space: 8 bytes per imported symbol, plus 20 for each
reference to it; load time: negligible; virtual/physical memory: should be
less than effect of DLL relocation, and I sincerely hope it doesn't affect
DLL sharability (too much).
Idea
The obvious and only way to get rid of dllimport insanity is to make client
access variable directly in the DLL, bypassing extra dereference. I.e.,
whenever client contains someting like
mov dll_var,%eax,
address of dll_var in the command should be relocated to point into loaded
DLL. The aim is to make OS loader do so, and than make ld help with that.
Import section of PE made following way: there's a vector of structures
each describing imports from particular DLL. Each such structure points
to two other parellel vectors: one holding imported names, and one which
will hold address of corresponding imported name. So, the solution is
de-vectorize these structures, making import locations be sparse and
pointing directly into code. Before continuing, it is worth a note that,
while authors strives to make PE act ELF-like, there're some other people
make ELF act PE-like: elfvector, ;-) .
Implementation
For each reference of data symbol to be imported from DLL (to set of which
belong symbols with name <sym>, if __imp_<sym> is found in implib), the
import fixup entry is generated. That entry is of type
IMAGE_IMPORT_DESCRIPTOR and stored in .idata$3 subsection. Each
fixup entry contains pointer to symbol's address within .text section
(marked with __fuN_<sym> symbol, where N is integer), pointer to DLL name
(so, DLL name is referenced by multiple entries), and pointer to symbol
name thunk. Symbol name thunk is singleton vector (__nm_th_<symbol>)
pointing to IMAGE_IMPORT_BY_NAME structure (__nm_<symbol>) directly
containing imported name. Here comes that "om the edge" problem mentioned
above: PE specification rambles that name vector (OriginalFirstThunk)
should run in parallel with addresses vector (FirstThunk), i.e. that they
should have same number of elements and terminated with zero. We violate
this, since FirstThunk points directly into machine code. But in practise,
OS loader implemented the sane way: it goes thru OriginalFirstThunk and
puts addresses to FirstThunk, not something else. It once again should be
noted that dll and symbol name structures are reused across fixup entries
and should be there anyway to support standard import stuff, so sustained
overhead is 20 bytes per reference. Other question is whether having several
IMAGE_IMPORT_DESCRIPTORS for the same DLL is possible. Answer is yes, it is
done even by native compiler/linker (libth32's functions are in fact reside
in windows9x kernel32.dll, so if you use it, you have two
IMAGE_IMPORT_DESCRIPTORS for kernel32.dll). Yet other question is whether
referencing the same PE structures several times is valid. The answer is why
not, prohibitting that (detecting violation) would require more work on
behalf of loader than not doing it.