From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from forward500c.mail.yandex.net (forward500c.mail.yandex.net [IPv6:2a02:6b8:c03:500:1:45:d181:d500]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C06B63858D1E for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2023 13:51:47 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org C06B63858D1E Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=yandex.ru Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=yandex.ru Received: from mail-nwsmtp-smtp-production-main-91.sas.yp-c.yandex.net (mail-nwsmtp-smtp-production-main-91.sas.yp-c.yandex.net [IPv6:2a02:6b8:c14:2991:0:640:bb47:0]) by forward500c.mail.yandex.net (Yandex) with ESMTP id 1DB875F5AA; Wed, 29 Mar 2023 16:51:45 +0300 (MSK) Received: by mail-nwsmtp-smtp-production-main-91.sas.yp-c.yandex.net (smtp/Yandex) with ESMTPSA id hpIAgx2DaqM0-2JERry5u; Wed, 29 Mar 2023 16:51:44 +0300 X-Yandex-Fwd: 1 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yandex.ru; s=mail; t=1680097904; bh=LyQLdQQD55GRG88H3/vW1DR9vrqgu5w3khLqSVlvQds=; h=In-Reply-To:From:Date:References:To:Subject:Message-ID; b=jVEigAIirfP8sQ8bpdb6pIOp0ZqAia2X9nmD6nBwbxyqZ3SheJCqx/rxdeb5OU4hd fypRAtW+eQz5dDKhbLCpuz8PpKB/GVu2/3FjPr1vYzf6un5AqSDMZWPaedKNpZHuya Jh5ZAsPr+SEUSZPQxpvA5IpTktswsXv5OBvilPFA= Authentication-Results: mail-nwsmtp-smtp-production-main-91.sas.yp-c.yandex.net; dkim=pass header.i=@yandex.ru Message-ID: <3541bbd7-8a68-2064-bb63-2a921cfe3bb1@yandex.ru> Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2023 18:51:42 +0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.7.1 Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/13] dlfcn,elf: implement dlmem() [BZ #11767] Content-Language: en-US To: Carlos O'Donell , libc-alpha@sourceware.org References: <20230318165110.3672749-1-stsp2@yandex.ru> <20230318165110.3672749-13-stsp2@yandex.ru> From: stsp In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,BODY_8BITS,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: 29.03.2023 18:45, Carlos O'Donell пишет: > On 3/18/23 12:51, Stas Sergeev via Libc-alpha wrote: >> This patch adds the following function: >> void *dlmem(const unsigned char *buffer, size_t size, int flags, >> struct dlmem_args *dlm_args); > I am raising a sustained objection to including dlmem() in glibc. > > I appreciate your effort in working on this serious, and I think *many* of > the core changes you propose are good cleanups. > > In my experience it is the wrong level of abstraction. > > To implement fdlopen on top of dlmem requires PT_LOAD processing and that > will duplicate into userspace a significant part of the complexity of ELF > loading and segment handling. The test case you include below is incomplete > when it comes to implementing a functional fdlopen() across the supported > architectures and toolchain variants. Carlos, please, be reasonable, I don't understand what do you want from me. :) Why my test-cases are incomplete? Why some "complete" test-case needs an elf parsing? Will this ever be demonstrated with some example or anything? I am really a bit tired of that permanently recurring argument about some elf parsing. I don't even know what are you talking about. Where, just where have you seen it in my patch? Or if its not there, why do you mention it?