[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2021 12:41:48 -0800
From: Tom Scogland <scogland1@...l.gov>
To: Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zanella@...aro.org>
Cc: musl@...ts.openwall.com, Farid Zakaria <fmzakari@...c.edu>,
Carlos Maltzahn <carlosm@...c.edu>
Subject: Re: Dynamic linking of NEEDED with absolute path differs than that of glibc
Certainly, we have no intention of mixing different versions of loader and libc or different libc types. In fact it’s mainly about making sure we avoid getting incorrectly mixed versions of other libraries due to loading issues.
On 23 Dec 2021, at 3:46, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
> On 21/12/2021 15:56, Farid Zakaria wrote:
>> ```
>>
>> glibc seems to happily link this and the executable runs.
>> ```
>> ldd ./tests/scratch/replace-add-needed/simple
>> linux-vdso.so.1 (0x00007ffc98d98000)
>> /some-fixed-path/libbar.so (0x00007f269b6d3000)
>> /some-fixed-path/llibfoo.so (0x00007f269b6ce000)
>> /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6 (0x00007f269b509000)
>> /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x00007f269c6e3000)
>> ```
>>
>
> Not sure if this is what you are doing here, but keep in mind that
> mixing glibc dynamic loader and libc with different versions is not
> supported and can break any time.
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.
