[PATCH v2] elf: Support DT_RELR relative relocation format [BZ #27924]

[H.J. Lu]

On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 4:00 PM Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 18 Oct 2021, H.J. Lu via Libc-alpha wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 3:30 PM Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 18 Oct 2021, H.J. Lu via Libc-alpha wrote:
> > >
> > > > If a binary requires a new glibc to run, running it with the old glibc will
> > > > lead to an ld.so diagnostic message.   DT_RELR shouldn't be different.
> > >
> > > My point is that in many cases (for example, a binary using a new flag as
> > > an argument to a function taking a flags argument) it *won't* lead to an
> > > ld.so diagnostic message, just to the relevant function call misbehaving
> > > at runtime.
> >
> > Do you have such a testcase?  It sounds like a glibc bug to me.
>
> We could take my recently submitted patch
> <https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libc-alpha/2021-October/131905.html> for
> printf %b and %B as an example of the sort of thing we haven't considered
> to need new symbol versions in the past.  If someone builds a program
> using any of about 70 printf-like functions (three times as many on
> powerpc64le because of long double variants) with a %b or %B format, it
> won't work correctly with older glibc versions, but the symbol versions
> won't prevent it from running on older glibc versions.  We haven't
> considered new printf/scanf/strftime/strfmon formats to need new symbol
> versions before (and if we did, there would be a lot of such versions in
> the printf case because there are a lot of printf-like functions).  (The
> strtol-like and scanf-like functions will need new symbol versions for the
> binary input changes because they will also affect the handling of base 2
> / base 0 input starting with 0b, i.e. change semantics of code that was
> already valid with previous glibc and standard versions.  But there are
> fewer such functions.)
>

Ideally when the new specifiers are used, it should require the new
glibc version.  Is there a way to do it?

-- 
H.J.