[Bug dynamic-link/20488] dl_build_local_scope processes in depth first not breadth first

[Bug dynamic-link/20488] dl_build_local_scope processes in depth first not breadth first

[EmmaJaneBonestell at gmail dot com]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20488

Emma Jane Bonestell <EmmaJaneBonestell at gmail dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |EmmaJaneBonestell at gmail dot com

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug dynamic-link/20488] dl_build_local_scope processes in depth first not breadth first

[richard.purdie at linuxfoundation dot org]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20488

richard.purdie at linuxfoundation dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |richard.purdie@linuxfoundat
                   |                            |ion.org

--- Comment #3 from richard.purdie at linuxfoundation dot org ---
FWIW if prelink is removed, this issue becomes obsolete as the code this fixes
is  removed.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug dynamic-link/20488] dl_build_local_scope processes in depth first not breadth first

[EmmaJaneBonestell at gmail dot com]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20488

--- Comment #4 from Emma Jane Bonestell <EmmaJaneBonestell at gmail dot com> ---
(In reply to richard.purdie from comment #3)
> FWIW if prelink is removed, this issue becomes obsolete as the code this
> fixes is  removed.

That's kind of a useless tautology. Of course it's obsolete if it isn't used or
is removed. 

I am always befuddled when bug reports are completely ignored when they have a
succinct summation of issues, a clear violation occurring, and even provision
of a fix. It would be nice to know why glibc has decided to be knowingly
non-ELF compliant for at least 6 years, on a violation ongoing for at least 20
years (
http://www.sco.com/developers/gabi/latest/ch5.dynamic.html#shobj_dependencies 

https://github.com/bminor/glibc/commit/32e6df3621edc5067dfd6e87a387e1751f67f708
).

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug dynamic-link/20488] dl_build_local_scope processes in depth first not breadth first

[adhemerval.zanella at linaro dot org]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20488

Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zanella at linaro dot org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |adhemerval.zanella at linaro dot o
                   |                            |rg

--- Comment #5 from Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zanella at linaro dot org> ---
(In reply to Emma Jane Bonestell from comment #4)
> (In reply to richard.purdie from comment #3)
> > FWIW if prelink is removed, this issue becomes obsolete as the code this
> > fixes is  removed.
> 
> That's kind of a useless tautology. Of course it's obsolete if it isn't used
> or is removed. 
> 
> I am always befuddled when bug reports are completely ignored when they have
> a succinct summation of issues, a clear violation occurring, and even
> provision of a fix. It would be nice to know why glibc has decided to be
> knowingly non-ELF compliant for at least 6 years, on a violation ongoing for
> at least 20 years (
> http://www.sco.com/developers/gabi/latest/ch5.dynamic.
> html#shobj_dependencies 
>  https://github.com/bminor/glibc/commit/
> 32e6df3621edc5067dfd6e87a387e1751f67f708 ).

Mainly because if you have followed up the prelink discussion recently done on
libc-alpha you would see this is a very rarely used feature, that requires
additional setup to actually test is, and that has bitrotten due lack of
maintanance. Also, prelink project itself is not activelly maintained, Joseph,
for instance, noted that a fix for aarch64 was never incorporated on
prelinking-ng repo.

Also, we have a limited volunters that is focused on diferent projects.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug dynamic-link/20488] dl_build_local_scope processes in depth first not breadth first

[EmmaJaneBonestell at gmail dot com]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20488

--- Comment #6 from Emma Jane Bonestell <EmmaJaneBonestell at gmail dot com> ---
(In reply to Adhemerval Zanella from comment #5)
> 
> Mainly because if you have followed up the prelink discussion recently done
> on libc-alpha you would see this is a very rarely used feature, that
> requires additional setup to actually test is, and that has bitrotten due
> lack of maintanance. Also, prelink project itself is not activelly
> maintained, Joseph, for instance, noted that a fix for aarch64 was never
> incorporated on prelinking-ng repo.
> 
> Also, we have a limited volunters that is focused on diferent projects.

I misunderstood that it has already been marked for removal. And yes, I do
understand the nature of open source/free software, though that's why I limited
it to when one has been essentially handed the solution. 

A bit disappointing as I've been tinkering with updating the SLINKY linker,
etc., to work on newer kernels, and it fundamentally depends on preloading. I
suppose patching back in preloading in addition to this patch won't be anymore
annoying than it already was :) .

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug dynamic-link/20488] dl_build_local_scope processes in depth first not breadth first

[richard.purdie at linuxfoundation dot org]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20488

--- Comment #7 from richard.purdie at linuxfoundation dot org ---
Note that prelinking and preloading are two different things.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug dynamic-link/20488] dl_build_local_scope processes in depth first not breadth first

[EmmaJaneBonestell at gmail dot com]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20488

--- Comment #8 from Emma Jane Bonestell <EmmaJaneBonestell at gmail dot com> ---
(In reply to richard.purdie from comment #7)
> Note that prelinking and preloading are two different things.

Yes, a mistake on my part. I did mean prelinking, not preloading, above.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug dynamic-link/20488] dl_build_local_scope processes in depth first not breadth first

[adhemerval.zanella at linaro dot org]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20488

--- Comment #9 from Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zanella at linaro dot org> ---
(In reply to Emma Jane Bonestell from comment #6)
> (In reply to Adhemerval Zanella from comment #5)
> > 
> > Mainly because if you have followed up the prelink discussion recently done
> > on libc-alpha you would see this is a very rarely used feature, that
> > requires additional setup to actually test is, and that has bitrotten due
> > lack of maintanance. Also, prelink project itself is not activelly
> > maintained, Joseph, for instance, noted that a fix for aarch64 was never
> > incorporated on prelinking-ng repo.
> > 
> > Also, we have a limited volunters that is focused on diferent projects.
> 
> I misunderstood that it has already been marked for removal. And yes, I do
> understand the nature of open source/free software, though that's why I
> limited it to when one has been essentially handed the solution. 

I only have been aware of this issue when it was pinged on libc-alpha some
weeks before 2.35 release and then I restarted the prelink discussion. It
turned out that prelink support is in a worse condition than I expected [1][2],
which make fixing this bug not really an useful (it would be used in a limited
environment, and it would require additional work such tests and checking on
some architectures).

[1] https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libc-alpha/2022-January/135520.html
[2] https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libc-alpha/2022-January/135520.html

> 
> A bit disappointing as I've been tinkering with updating the SLINKY linker,
> etc., to work on newer kernels, and it fundamentally depends on preloading.
> I suppose patching back in preloading in addition to this patch won't be
> anymore annoying than it already was :) .

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.