Date: Fri, 22 May 2020 18:50:06 +0200 From: Harald Welte <laforge@...monks.org> To: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> Cc: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: MUSL ignores__attribute__((constructor(priority))) ? Hi Rich, On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 05:49:48PM -0400, Rich Felker wrote: > > According to the OpenWRT build I have been provided by a 3rd party, it's > > using musl-1-1.23. > > Can you confirm this to make sure we're not debugging an issue that's > long since fixed? Run /lib/ld-musl-armhf.so.1 as a command and it will > print its version. *sigh*. It was 1.1.20. This specific (vendor) OpenWRT tree was broken in that it used the 1.1.20 source code but called the generated packages and path names 1.1.23 :/ After updating the sources to actual 1.1.23, the constructor order is correct and I can run the unmodified libraries + application just like on glibc. Sorry for the noise then. Normally if something is named 1.1.23 you assume it also is 1.1.23 inside... > FWIW the only standards that musl purports to actually adhere to are > C, POSIX, and IEEE 754 (as referenced by C Annex F). While ELF is the > binary format used and we aim to use it in compatible ways so as not > to be gratuitously breaking, there are a lot of details that do not > match historical SysV behavior (this is also true on glibc to a lesser > extent), e.g. historical RPATH vs RUNPATH difference, LD_* vars, etc. Does that explain why trying to LD_PRELOAD libtalloc didn't fix the ordering either? It was one humble attempt at manually overriding the order (on 1.1.20). > I only bring this up because "historical SysV documents say you have > to do things this way" is not *automatically* a compelling argument > for what musl should do, just one ingredient for consideration. I would argue the compelling argument is to ensure applications (of which probably 99% or at least 90% are written and tested with glibc) will work ideally without porting, or without significant porting effort and/or without subtle or not-so-subtle bugs [not claiming you did so, just arguing hypothetically]. But then, this is just the library user perspective of course, and everyone can run their project the way they want. Thanks again. Regards, Harald -- - Harald Welte <laforge@...monks.org> http://laforge.gnumonks.org/ ============================================================================ "Privacy in residential applications is a desirable marketing option." (ETSI EN 300 175-7 Ch. A6)
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.