Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2023 18:23:20 -0700
From: Farid Zakaria <>
To: Rich Felker <>
Subject: Re: dynlink.c tests

On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 5:03 PM Rich Felker <> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 11:08:31AM -0700, Farid Zakaria wrote:
> > Just to be pedantic, few ideas come to mind:
> > - One could change the symbol count method to only use DT_HASH and it
> > would succeed until GCC removed it ;)
> There are already distros building with GNU-hash-only, so one of them
> would catch such breakage.
> > - The order of resolution for dependencies
> This has changed before from whatever-it-was to something very
> intentional, and basic testing of the intended order was done at the
> time, but we don't have regularly run tests for it. While future
> changes here would come with manual testing like that again, it would
> be nice to have an automated framework for this.
> > - $ORIGIN replacement
> This is probably under-tested but I'm not aware of any reported bugs,
> and it's not code that's churning.
> > I am very appreciative of the codebase.
> > I'm going through it at the moment "stripping it down" a bit to be for
> > x86-64 and adding some comments to help me better understand the
> > process.
> I'm not sure that makes much sense. The code as it is isn't overly
> general or using any expensive abstraction layers to support all
> archs. It's very intentionally designed around the concept that all
> archs are basically the same in regards to how dynamic linking works.
> Trying to specialize to just supporting one *obscures* that property
> and makes the arch-specific naming/numbering of relocation types, etc.
> look like a relevant difference when it's not.

Agreed that it's pretty minimal already.
Some of the code is quite terse, I'm guessing also favoring performance.
As a learning exercise, I'm trying to change the trade-off for clarity
in spite of performance.

> > I was going to look at whether I can take on a C++ standard as a
> > dependency as well.
> I mean you can do whatever you like in your own hacking around, but
> without being really intentional about what parts of C++ you do and
> don't use, it's easy to pull in circular dependencies, dependencies on
> things that depend on stuff before it has been (and before it's
> possible to have been) initialized, etc.
> Also, of course, C and C++ are different languages -- in particular,
> C++ is a not a superset of C. There's no guarantee that any of the
> code in musl behaves as intended when compiled as C++, because it's
> not C++. This wouldn't matter if you're working with separate C++ TUs
> but it would possibly matter if you started trying to put C++ in
> existing C files.
> Rich

I will have to learn more about C/C++ distinction.
I would think that the only dependency the STL has is libc and from
what I understand the dynamic linker relocates itself so that libc can
be used by the time stage3 rolled around.
The C++ can be separate compilation units and linked in -- I don't see
a problem setting that up if its easier.
I'm thinking of introducing it only for all the stage3+ stuff.
I already like how the functions largely work on the DSO struct itself.

I'm also doing some exploratory stuff with SQLite which I am finding
quite interesting.

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.