From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
 id D87903987010; Tue,  3 Nov 2020 17:05:48 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org D87903987010
From: "fweimer at redhat dot com" <sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org>
To: glibc-bugs@sourceware.org
Subject: [Bug nss/26825] dlopen failure isn't properly handled by
 __nss_lookup_function
Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2020 17:05:48 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: glibc
X-Bugzilla-Component: nss
X-Bugzilla-Version: 2.33
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: fweimer at redhat dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at sourceware dot org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: security-
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-26825-131-MkBsa7iFEc@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-26825-131@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-26825-131@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BeenThere: glibc-bugs@sourceware.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Glibc-bugs mailing list <glibc-bugs.sourceware.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://sourceware.org/mailman/options/glibc-bugs>,
 <mailto:glibc-bugs-request@sourceware.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://sourceware.org/pipermail/glibc-bugs/>
List-Help: <mailto:glibc-bugs-request@sourceware.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://sourceware.org/mailman/listinfo/glibc-bugs>,
 <mailto:glibc-bugs-request@sourceware.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2020 17:05:49 -0000

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D26825

--- Comment #5 from Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com> ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #4)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #3)
> > (In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #2)
> > > Or maybe it's the unloading of libc.so.6 after static dlopen that tri=
ggers
> > > this. We may avoid this by loading libc.so.6 separately, on the first=
 dlopen
> > > call.
> >=20
> > Mark libc.so.6 with NODELETE?
>=20
> It doesn't work.  libc.so.6 wasn't unloaded.

Yes, this is expected after the NODELETE changes. We need to debug this to
figure out where things go wrong, if we do not want to load libc.so.6 in a =
way
that makes load failure unlikely.

--=20
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.=