Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 14:39:38 +0200
From: "Arvid E. Picciani" <>
To: <>
Subject: Re: ldso: dlclose.

On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 20:48:03 -0400, Rich Felker wrote:

> To elaborate, removing a DSO from a process's address space is highly
> non-trivial and error-prone.

In fact it doesn't even work correctly in glibc.
It's just that usually no one notices.

When i see people using plugin architectures with unload,
it's almost always coming down from a  high level design.

The lack of any usable IPC in linux lead to glueing the
components into one process.
Plugins make it appear clean, but really it's not clean at all.
Much worse when C++ comes into the mix and arbitrary
things happen at the "abi" level.

Plugins are _not_ a good component separation design.
Neither are any of the alternatives, of course...

Another sad story of how the religious view of one kernel
maintainer creates a whole universe of bad design further down.

Arvid E. Picciani

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.