Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] elfutils: don't use dlopen() for libebl modules

[Mark Wielaard <mark@klomp.org>]

Hi Omar,

On Mon, 2019-07-08 at 14:02 -0700, Omar Sandoval wrote:
> I imagine that little by little, most of the libebl functionality could
> be converted in this way, and that's how we could chip away at the size
> increase of the elfutils binaries.
> 
> Do you have any objections to patches 1-4 of my submission [2]?
> 
> Thanks for the timely response!
> 
> 1: https://sourceware.org/ml/elfutils-devel/2019-q3/msg00022.html
> 2: https://sourceware.org/ml/elfutils-devel/2019-q3/msg00020.html

I am still pondering this a little. But I do think (patches 1-4) is the
(first) step forward. But I think I would like to do a 0.177 release
with the last 4 months of fixes first. We normally do a release every
3-4 months, so it is about time, and it means your feature wouldn't
have to wait that long. Although it would be a couple of months before
it sees a release. But I think it would be good to have some time to
make sure the idea works out in practice.

So I would propose a release end of this week/start of next week. But
without the libebl build rewrite.

For the release there are then still 3 things pending:

- The eu-elfclassify tool
  https://sourceware.org/ml/elfutils-devel/2019-q2/msg00018.html
  I had hoped on some feedback from the rpm hackers, since they are
  one if the intended users. And there are some (small) missing
  features and tests. Lets see where we are end if the week to see
  whether we can include that, or also postpone it to the next release.
- The C-SKY backend:
  https://sourceware.org/ml/elfutils-devel/2019-q2/msg00007.html
  This is really just blocked on me not making enough time for a
  final review. It looks good, but I am confused about one aspect
  of the DWARF register numbering issue.
- The dwelf_elf_e_machine_string patch:
  https://sourceware.org/ml/elfutils-devel/2019-q2/msg00130.html
  I didn't see any objections, so I think this is good to go.

Then after the release, somewhere next week, we'll apply your patches
first and can then deal with any fallout and followups. I am thinking
of moving some of the functionality into libdw proper (as cleaned up,
exported api) to reduce the size increase a little. And add a mechanism
for only building some of the backends (or maybe just drop some old
ones that nobody uses anyway).

Cheers,

Mark