This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the glibc project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: The future of static dlopen

On 12/20/2017 05:36 PM, Zack Weinberg wrote:
On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 11:24 PM, Florian Weimer <> wrote:
On 12/20/2017 08:03 AM, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
It would be easiest to have a proxy process to handle these requests
for you... such a proxy process could be a proxy thread instead?
As you suggest earlier have the kernel start a new tid, and map into
your VMA a new dynamic executable that you can access and call into
for services?

I would just add an option to /usr/bin/getent which causes it to enter
co-process mode.  It's not going to be extremely efficient (especially if we
don't use a persistent subprocess, but it would be quite reliable, unlike
what we have to day).

This seems like another case where making nscd less of an afterthought
would be a win.  It already does this job, after all.

I don't think nscd takes care of everything. Enumeration is missing, I think, and so are some databases (aliasent, etherent).

In principle,
static binaries could just omit the no-nscd fallback path.  (In
practice, falling back to "files [dns]" might be the right thing,
since static binaries tend to get used for recovery.)

I thought about that as well, but I'm really not sure if using nscd brings a benefit. From a distribution perspective, if you have to install nscd to run certain satic libraries, that might also enable it for dynamically-linked binaries, and many users may not want that.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]