[PATCH v9 0/13] implement dlmem() function

[Adhemerval Zanella Netto]

On 13/04/23 15:59, stsp wrote:
> Hi Adhemerval,
> 
> 13.04.2023 23:09, Adhemerval Zanella Netto пишет:
>> It is being tiring to work with your proposal because Rich already
>> brought the inherent issue of exposing the loader internals for ELF
>> objects [1] about 10 years ago,
> 
> My proposal did not exist 10 years ago.
> Maybe we all do not properly document
> our proposals or an objections. So let me
> ask you to please refer to a particular
> comment rather than to some 10 years
> ago thread, and then carefully document
> how can that be the problem in my patches.
> 
> I think its a fair ask, e.g. Szabolcs asked
> me for a more precise spec - I write. We
> progress. Why can't you write the objections
> in a detalization level that is enough to
> make a progress?

Sigh, we are going into circles again.

> 
> I admit you probably couldn't do that initially,
> because I poorly documented my API. But
> when Carlos asked for a more detailed spec,
> I did. Now you can express your objections
> in a detailed manner, let me even attach
> the prev API draft to help you doing that.
> Of course this draft will be simplified a lot,
> but for such a "generic" objections please
> use its current form.

The problem is not a poor documented ABI, the ABI itself has inherent
corner cases brought multiple times.  The problem you are trying to
solve would be better served with a custom loader.

> 
> I have expressed the plans at removing all the
> corner cases that Szabolcs pointed to. If you
> point more, I'll definitely take an actions.
> Off-loading the biggest part to RTLD_NORELOC
> will reduce the proposal considerably, avoid
> the callback and most of other complexity, so
> why such a prejudice? Why can't we just discuss,
> amend, see what happens?

The RTLD_NORELOC itself is not a better approach, is just moving the
same corner cases that we brought to a different symbol... against
walking in cycles.

> 
> Ok, should I post the next drafts to the bugzilla
> then, if flooding ML is bad?
> Its not a problem, really!
> You tell me what to do, I do.
> Why such a policy things are even becoming
> a problems? I didn't mean to offend anyone
> by flooding the ML, I'll post to bugzilla, and I
> don't want you to be offended on me just because
> of that. :)

Do not bother, I think the best course of action is just to drop
the RFE.