This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Is it a GNU Tools failure that PIE use ET_DYN and can't be distinguished from libraries?
- From: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>
- To: GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 12:55:08 -0400
- Subject: Is it a GNU Tools failure that PIE use ET_DYN and can't be distinguished from libraries?
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
While looking at recent ABI comparison failures I noticed that
some internal Red Hat tooling was looking at PIEs and treating
their exported dynamic symbols as fixed ABI/API that must not
The truth is that from the tooling perspective you can't tell the
difference between a PIE and an ET_DYN, except that you might guess
PIE if you see PT_INTERP (and you'd be wrong for libc.so and
Is it a failing of the tooling that we didn't provide a way for
tools to determine PIE vs. DSO?
Was it always the goal to be able to dlopen a PIE? e.g. Implement
both the daemon as a standalone executable and as a DSO you could
load and run as a service?