Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2023 13:32:02 +1100 From: "Eleanor Bartle" <eleanor@...anor-nb.com> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Care about Symbol Namespacing? [please cc] ELF doesn't have a standard equivalent of Mach-O's Two-Level Namespace, but one can be grafted on, as Solaris does with Direct Binding. I've inquired about this on IRC and the objections raised against it concern moving symbols between or coalescing shared objects without breaking dependent binaries. What I'm wondering is, is it worth thinking about a symbol namespacing system that accounts for this? Would the robustness benefits of such a system be worth the specification complexity? To be clear, I don't have such a proposal on hand, and it would take me a while to get one ready (and a while more to work out all the kinks I'll inevitably miss); I have the ghost of an idea involving components specifying interface names rather than filenames, which ld.so could then map to shared objects potentially non-injectively, but I don't know the fine details of implementation. This message is mainly to gauge if leadership is at all interested in the broad idea, to determine if even thinking about it is worth my time. Content of type "text/html" skipped
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.