This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [RFC PATCH v4 1/5] glibc: Perform rseq(2) registration at nptl init and thread creation
- From: Rich Felker <dalias at libc dot org>
- To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu dot desnoyers at efficios dot com>
- Cc: Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com>, carlos <carlos at redhat dot com>, Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, Szabolcs Nagy <szabolcs dot nagy at arm dot com>, libc-alpha <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx at linutronix dot de>, Ben Maurer <bmaurer at fb dot com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz at infradead dot org>, "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>, Boqun Feng <boqun dot feng at gmail dot com>, Will Deacon <will dot deacon at arm dot com>, Dave Watson <davejwatson at fb dot com>, Paul Turner <pjt at google dot com>, linux-kernel <linux-kernel at vger dot kernel dot org>, linux-api <linux-api at vger dot kernel dot org>
- Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2018 12:07:58 -0500
- Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 1/5] glibc: Perform rseq(2) registration at nptl init and thread creation
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <1150466925.11664.1542992720871.JavaMail.email@example.com> <20181123173019.GK23599@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <865273158.11687.1542995541389.JavaMail.firstname.lastname@example.org> <20181123183558.GM23599@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <1758017676.12041.1543007347347.JavaMail.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <688718071.12798.1543247469553.JavaMail.email@example.com> <1284855405.12857.1543249851299.JavaMail.firstname.lastname@example.org>
On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 11:30:51AM -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> ----- On Nov 26, 2018, at 10:51 AM, Mathieu Desnoyers email@example.com wrote:
> > ----- On Nov 26, 2018, at 3:28 AM, Florian Weimer firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> >> * Mathieu Desnoyers:
> >>> Using a "weak" symbol in early adopter libraries is important, so they
> >>> can be loaded together into the same process without causing loader
> >>> errors due to many definitions of the same strong symbol.
> >> This is not how ELF dynamic linking works. If the symbol name is the
> >> same, one definition interposes the others.
> >> You need to ensure that the symbol has the same size everywhere, though.
> >> There are some tricky interactions with symbol versions, too. (The
> >> interposing libraries must not use symbol versioning.)
> > I was under the impression that loading the same strong symbol into an
> > application multiple times would cause some kind of warning if non-weak. I did
> > some testing to figure out which case I remembered would cause this.
> > When compiling with "-fno-common", dynamic and static linking work fine, but
> > trying to add multiple instances of a given symbol into a single object fails
> > with:
> > /tmp/ccSakXZV.o:(.bss+0x0): multiple definition of `a'
> > /tmp/ccQBJBOo.o:(.bss+0x0): first defined here
> > Even if the symbol has the same size.
> > So considering that we don't care about compiling into a single object here,
> > and only care about static and dynamic linking of libraries, indeed the "weak"
> > symbol is not useful.
> > So let's make __rseq_abi and __rseq_refcount strong symbols then ?
> Actually, looking into ld(1) --warn-common, it looks like "weak" would be cleaner
> after all, especially for __rseq_abi which we needs to be initialized to a specific
> value, which is therefore not a common symbol.
> " --warn-common
> Warn when a common symbol is combined with another common symbol or with a symbol definition. Unix
> linkers allow this somewhat sloppy practice, but linkers on some other operating systems do not.
> This option allows you to find potential problems from combining global symbols. Unfortunately,
> some C libraries use this practice, so you may get some warnings about symbols in the libraries as
> well as in your programs."
> Thoughts ?
AFAIK this has nothing to do with dynamic linking.