* [PATCH] elf: work around a gcc bug in elf_get_dynamic_info
@ 2021-01-11 15:11 Szabolcs Nagy
2021-01-12 17:52 ` Adhemerval Zanella
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Szabolcs Nagy @ 2021-01-11 15:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: libc-alpha
Since commit 2f056e8a5dd4dc0f075413f931e82cede37d1057
"aarch64: define PI_STATIC_AND_HIDDEN",
building glibc with gcc-8 on aarch64 fails with
/BLD/elf/librtld.os: in function `elf_get_dynamic_info':
/SRC/elf/get-dynamic-info.h:70:(.text+0xad8): relocation truncated to
fit: R_AARCH64_ADR_PREL_PG_HI21 against symbol `_rtld_local' defined
in .data section in /BLD/elf/librtld.os
This is a gcc bug:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98618
Rewriting the affected code in elf_get_dynamic_info
seems to make this issue go away on old gcc.
The change makes the logic a bit clearer too (by
separating the index computation and array update)
and drops an older gcc workaround (since gcc 4.6
is no longer supported).
---
note: with new gcc the code generation only changes
slightly on aarch64 (the code becomes a bit smaller),
with old gcc the change is not a robust fix for the
issue but it seems to be be sufficient in my testing.
the change only expected to have minor effect on
other targets, since it's mostly cosmetic.
elf/get-dynamic-info.h | 41 ++++++++++++++++++-----------------------
1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
diff --git a/elf/get-dynamic-info.h b/elf/get-dynamic-info.h
index 4f9aac63de..d8b071dff5 100644
--- a/elf/get-dynamic-info.h
+++ b/elf/get-dynamic-info.h
@@ -28,52 +28,47 @@ static
auto
#endif
inline void __attribute__ ((unused, always_inline))
elf_get_dynamic_info (struct link_map *l, ElfW(Dyn) *temp)
{
- ElfW(Dyn) *dyn = l->l_ld;
- ElfW(Dyn) **info;
#if __ELF_NATIVE_CLASS == 32
typedef Elf32_Word d_tag_utype;
#elif __ELF_NATIVE_CLASS == 64
typedef Elf64_Xword d_tag_utype;
#endif
#if !defined RTLD_BOOTSTRAP && !defined STATIC_PIE_BOOTSTRAP
- if (dyn == NULL)
+ if (l->l_ld == NULL)
return;
#endif
- info = l->l_info;
+ ElfW(Dyn) **info = l->l_info;
- while (dyn->d_tag != DT_NULL)
+ for (ElfW(Dyn) *dyn = l->l_ld; dyn->d_tag != DT_NULL; dyn++)
{
+ d_tag_utype i;
+
if ((d_tag_utype) dyn->d_tag < DT_NUM)
- info[dyn->d_tag] = dyn;
+ i = dyn->d_tag;
else if (dyn->d_tag >= DT_LOPROC
&& dyn->d_tag < DT_LOPROC + DT_THISPROCNUM)
- {
- /* This does not violate the array bounds of l->l_info, but
- gcc 4.6 on sparc somehow does not see this. */
- DIAG_PUSH_NEEDS_COMMENT;
- DIAG_IGNORE_NEEDS_COMMENT (4.6,
- "-Warray-bounds");
- info[dyn->d_tag - DT_LOPROC + DT_NUM] = dyn;
- DIAG_POP_NEEDS_COMMENT;
- }
+ i = dyn->d_tag - DT_LOPROC + DT_NUM;
else if ((d_tag_utype) DT_VERSIONTAGIDX (dyn->d_tag) < DT_VERSIONTAGNUM)
- info[VERSYMIDX (dyn->d_tag)] = dyn;
+ i = DT_VERSIONTAGIDX (dyn->d_tag) + DT_NUM + DT_THISPROCNUM;
else if ((d_tag_utype) DT_EXTRATAGIDX (dyn->d_tag) < DT_EXTRANUM)
- info[DT_EXTRATAGIDX (dyn->d_tag) + DT_NUM + DT_THISPROCNUM
- + DT_VERSIONTAGNUM] = dyn;
+ i = DT_EXTRATAGIDX (dyn->d_tag) + DT_NUM + DT_THISPROCNUM
+ + DT_VERSIONTAGNUM;
else if ((d_tag_utype) DT_VALTAGIDX (dyn->d_tag) < DT_VALNUM)
- info[DT_VALTAGIDX (dyn->d_tag) + DT_NUM + DT_THISPROCNUM
- + DT_VERSIONTAGNUM + DT_EXTRANUM] = dyn;
+ i = DT_VALTAGIDX (dyn->d_tag) + DT_NUM + DT_THISPROCNUM
+ + DT_VERSIONTAGNUM + DT_EXTRANUM;
else if ((d_tag_utype) DT_ADDRTAGIDX (dyn->d_tag) < DT_ADDRNUM)
- info[DT_ADDRTAGIDX (dyn->d_tag) + DT_NUM + DT_THISPROCNUM
- + DT_VERSIONTAGNUM + DT_EXTRANUM + DT_VALNUM] = dyn;
- ++dyn;
+ i = DT_ADDRTAGIDX (dyn->d_tag) + DT_NUM + DT_THISPROCNUM
+ + DT_VERSIONTAGNUM + DT_EXTRANUM + DT_VALNUM;
+ else
+ continue;
+
+ info[i] = dyn;
}
#define DL_RO_DYN_TEMP_CNT 8
#ifndef DL_RO_DYN_SECTION
--
2.17.1
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] elf: work around a gcc bug in elf_get_dynamic_info
2021-01-11 15:11 [PATCH] elf: work around a gcc bug in elf_get_dynamic_info Szabolcs Nagy
@ 2021-01-12 17:52 ` Adhemerval Zanella
2021-01-13 9:10 ` Szabolcs Nagy
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Adhemerval Zanella @ 2021-01-12 17:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Szabolcs Nagy, libc-alpha
On 11/01/2021 12:11, Szabolcs Nagy via Libc-alpha wrote:
> Since commit 2f056e8a5dd4dc0f075413f931e82cede37d1057
> "aarch64: define PI_STATIC_AND_HIDDEN",
> building glibc with gcc-8 on aarch64 fails with
>
> /BLD/elf/librtld.os: in function `elf_get_dynamic_info':
> /SRC/elf/get-dynamic-info.h:70:(.text+0xad8): relocation truncated to
> fit: R_AARCH64_ADR_PREL_PG_HI21 against symbol `_rtld_local' defined
> in .data section in /BLD/elf/librtld.os
>
> This is a gcc bug:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98618
>
> Rewriting the affected code in elf_get_dynamic_info
> seems to make this issue go away on old gcc.
>
> The change makes the logic a bit clearer too (by
> separating the index computation and array update)
> and drops an older gcc workaround (since gcc 4.6
> is no longer supported).
So if I understood correctly this bug affects only gcc-8? Or
does it affect older version as well? From comment #3, Wilco stated
it was fixed by on gcc-10, so I take it was backported to gcc-9
already (since you didn't see it on gcc-9).
I did a sniff build tests with different gcc (8 and 9 mostly) on
different architectures and it seems ok.
LGTM with the just nit below about VERSYMIDX.
Reviewed-by: Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org>
> ---
> note: with new gcc the code generation only changes
> slightly on aarch64 (the code becomes a bit smaller),
> with old gcc the change is not a robust fix for the
> issue but it seems to be be sufficient in my testing.
>
> the change only expected to have minor effect on
> other targets, since it's mostly cosmetic.
>
> elf/get-dynamic-info.h | 41 ++++++++++++++++++-----------------------
> 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/elf/get-dynamic-info.h b/elf/get-dynamic-info.h
> index 4f9aac63de..d8b071dff5 100644
> --- a/elf/get-dynamic-info.h
> +++ b/elf/get-dynamic-info.h
> @@ -28,52 +28,47 @@ static
> auto
> #endif
> inline void __attribute__ ((unused, always_inline))
> elf_get_dynamic_info (struct link_map *l, ElfW(Dyn) *temp)
> {
> - ElfW(Dyn) *dyn = l->l_ld;
> - ElfW(Dyn) **info;
> #if __ELF_NATIVE_CLASS == 32
> typedef Elf32_Word d_tag_utype;
> #elif __ELF_NATIVE_CLASS == 64
> typedef Elf64_Xword d_tag_utype;
> #endif
>
> #if !defined RTLD_BOOTSTRAP && !defined STATIC_PIE_BOOTSTRAP
> - if (dyn == NULL)
> + if (l->l_ld == NULL)
> return;
> #endif
>
> - info = l->l_info;
> + ElfW(Dyn) **info = l->l_info;
>
Ok.
> - while (dyn->d_tag != DT_NULL)
> + for (ElfW(Dyn) *dyn = l->l_ld; dyn->d_tag != DT_NULL; dyn++)
> {
> + d_tag_utype i;
> +
> if ((d_tag_utype) dyn->d_tag < DT_NUM)
> - info[dyn->d_tag] = dyn;
> + i = dyn->d_tag;
> else if (dyn->d_tag >= DT_LOPROC
> && dyn->d_tag < DT_LOPROC + DT_THISPROCNUM)
> - {
> - /* This does not violate the array bounds of l->l_info, but
> - gcc 4.6 on sparc somehow does not see this. */
> - DIAG_PUSH_NEEDS_COMMENT;
> - DIAG_IGNORE_NEEDS_COMMENT (4.6,
> - "-Warray-bounds");
> - info[dyn->d_tag - DT_LOPROC + DT_NUM] = dyn;
> - DIAG_POP_NEEDS_COMMENT;
> - }
> + i = dyn->d_tag - DT_LOPROC + DT_NUM;
Ok.
> else if ((d_tag_utype) DT_VERSIONTAGIDX (dyn->d_tag) < DT_VERSIONTAGNUM)
> - info[VERSYMIDX (dyn->d_tag)] = dyn;
> + i = DT_VERSIONTAGIDX (dyn->d_tag) + DT_NUM + DT_THISPROCNUM;
Why expand VERSYMIDX macro here?
> else if ((d_tag_utype) DT_EXTRATAGIDX (dyn->d_tag) < DT_EXTRANUM)
> - info[DT_EXTRATAGIDX (dyn->d_tag) + DT_NUM + DT_THISPROCNUM
> - + DT_VERSIONTAGNUM] = dyn;
> + i = DT_EXTRATAGIDX (dyn->d_tag) + DT_NUM + DT_THISPROCNUM
> + + DT_VERSIONTAGNUM;
Ok.
> else if ((d_tag_utype) DT_VALTAGIDX (dyn->d_tag) < DT_VALNUM)
> - info[DT_VALTAGIDX (dyn->d_tag) + DT_NUM + DT_THISPROCNUM
> - + DT_VERSIONTAGNUM + DT_EXTRANUM] = dyn;
> + i = DT_VALTAGIDX (dyn->d_tag) + DT_NUM + DT_THISPROCNUM
> + + DT_VERSIONTAGNUM + DT_EXTRANUM;
Ok.
> else if ((d_tag_utype) DT_ADDRTAGIDX (dyn->d_tag) < DT_ADDRNUM)
> - info[DT_ADDRTAGIDX (dyn->d_tag) + DT_NUM + DT_THISPROCNUM
> - + DT_VERSIONTAGNUM + DT_EXTRANUM + DT_VALNUM] = dyn;
> - ++dyn;
> + i = DT_ADDRTAGIDX (dyn->d_tag) + DT_NUM + DT_THISPROCNUM
> + + DT_VERSIONTAGNUM + DT_EXTRANUM + DT_VALNUM;
> + else
> + continue;
> +
> + info[i] = dyn;
> }
>
> #define DL_RO_DYN_TEMP_CNT 8
>
> #ifndef DL_RO_DYN_SECTION
>
Ok.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] elf: work around a gcc bug in elf_get_dynamic_info
2021-01-12 17:52 ` Adhemerval Zanella
@ 2021-01-13 9:10 ` Szabolcs Nagy
2021-01-13 12:53 ` Adhemerval Zanella
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Szabolcs Nagy @ 2021-01-13 9:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Adhemerval Zanella; +Cc: libc-alpha
The 01/12/2021 14:52, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
> On 11/01/2021 12:11, Szabolcs Nagy via Libc-alpha wrote:
> > Since commit 2f056e8a5dd4dc0f075413f931e82cede37d1057
> > "aarch64: define PI_STATIC_AND_HIDDEN",
> > building glibc with gcc-8 on aarch64 fails with
> >
> > /BLD/elf/librtld.os: in function `elf_get_dynamic_info':
> > /SRC/elf/get-dynamic-info.h:70:(.text+0xad8): relocation truncated to
> > fit: R_AARCH64_ADR_PREL_PG_HI21 against symbol `_rtld_local' defined
> > in .data section in /BLD/elf/librtld.os
> >
> > This is a gcc bug:
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98618
> >
> > Rewriting the affected code in elf_get_dynamic_info
> > seems to make this issue go away on old gcc.
> >
> > The change makes the logic a bit clearer too (by
> > separating the index computation and array update)
> > and drops an older gcc workaround (since gcc 4.6
> > is no longer supported).
>
> So if I understood correctly this bug affects only gcc-8? Or
> does it affect older version as well? From comment #3, Wilco stated
affects gcc-7 and older gcc too, but i see this
was not clear in my message.
> it was fixed by on gcc-10, so I take it was backported to gcc-9
> already (since you didn't see it on gcc-9).
it seems to affect gcc-9 too, but a change in how
constants are constructed seems to make it less
likely to hit.
i'll update the description.
>
> I did a sniff build tests with different gcc (8 and 9 mostly) on
> different architectures and it seems ok.
>
> LGTM with the just nit below about VERSYMIDX.
>
> Reviewed-by: Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org>
>
...
> > - while (dyn->d_tag != DT_NULL)
> > + for (ElfW(Dyn) *dyn = l->l_ld; dyn->d_tag != DT_NULL; dyn++)
> > {
> > + d_tag_utype i;
> > +
> > if ((d_tag_utype) dyn->d_tag < DT_NUM)
> > - info[dyn->d_tag] = dyn;
> > + i = dyn->d_tag;
> > else if (dyn->d_tag >= DT_LOPROC
> > && dyn->d_tag < DT_LOPROC + DT_THISPROCNUM)
> > - {
> > - /* This does not violate the array bounds of l->l_info, but
> > - gcc 4.6 on sparc somehow does not see this. */
> > - DIAG_PUSH_NEEDS_COMMENT;
> > - DIAG_IGNORE_NEEDS_COMMENT (4.6,
> > - "-Warray-bounds");
> > - info[dyn->d_tag - DT_LOPROC + DT_NUM] = dyn;
> > - DIAG_POP_NEEDS_COMMENT;
> > - }
> > + i = dyn->d_tag - DT_LOPROC + DT_NUM;
>
> Ok.
> > else if ((d_tag_utype) DT_VERSIONTAGIDX (dyn->d_tag) < DT_VERSIONTAGNUM)
> > - info[VERSYMIDX (dyn->d_tag)] = dyn;
> > + i = DT_VERSIONTAGIDX (dyn->d_tag) + DT_NUM + DT_THISPROCNUM;
>
> Why expand VERSYMIDX macro here?
>
for the same reason VALIDX and ADDRIDX are not used below:
i think this makes it clearer what's going on, you don't
have to look up these convenience macros in ldsodefs.h
to verify that the checks are right.
but i can undo this change.
> > else if ((d_tag_utype) DT_EXTRATAGIDX (dyn->d_tag) < DT_EXTRANUM)
> > - info[DT_EXTRATAGIDX (dyn->d_tag) + DT_NUM + DT_THISPROCNUM
> > - + DT_VERSIONTAGNUM] = dyn;
> > + i = DT_EXTRATAGIDX (dyn->d_tag) + DT_NUM + DT_THISPROCNUM
> > + + DT_VERSIONTAGNUM;
>
> Ok.
>
> > else if ((d_tag_utype) DT_VALTAGIDX (dyn->d_tag) < DT_VALNUM)
> > - info[DT_VALTAGIDX (dyn->d_tag) + DT_NUM + DT_THISPROCNUM
> > - + DT_VERSIONTAGNUM + DT_EXTRANUM] = dyn;
> > + i = DT_VALTAGIDX (dyn->d_tag) + DT_NUM + DT_THISPROCNUM
> > + + DT_VERSIONTAGNUM + DT_EXTRANUM;
>
> Ok.
>
> > else if ((d_tag_utype) DT_ADDRTAGIDX (dyn->d_tag) < DT_ADDRNUM)
> > - info[DT_ADDRTAGIDX (dyn->d_tag) + DT_NUM + DT_THISPROCNUM
> > - + DT_VERSIONTAGNUM + DT_EXTRANUM + DT_VALNUM] = dyn;
> > - ++dyn;
> > + i = DT_ADDRTAGIDX (dyn->d_tag) + DT_NUM + DT_THISPROCNUM
> > + + DT_VERSIONTAGNUM + DT_EXTRANUM + DT_VALNUM;
> > + else
> > + continue;
> > +
> > + info[i] = dyn;
> > }
> >
> > #define DL_RO_DYN_TEMP_CNT 8
> >
> > #ifndef DL_RO_DYN_SECTION
> >
>
> Ok.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] elf: work around a gcc bug in elf_get_dynamic_info
2021-01-13 9:10 ` Szabolcs Nagy
@ 2021-01-13 12:53 ` Adhemerval Zanella
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Adhemerval Zanella @ 2021-01-13 12:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Szabolcs Nagy; +Cc: libc-alpha
On 13/01/2021 06:10, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> The 01/12/2021 14:52, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
>> On 11/01/2021 12:11, Szabolcs Nagy via Libc-alpha wrote:
>>> Since commit 2f056e8a5dd4dc0f075413f931e82cede37d1057
>>> "aarch64: define PI_STATIC_AND_HIDDEN",
>>> building glibc with gcc-8 on aarch64 fails with
>>>
>>> /BLD/elf/librtld.os: in function `elf_get_dynamic_info':
>>> /SRC/elf/get-dynamic-info.h:70:(.text+0xad8): relocation truncated to
>>> fit: R_AARCH64_ADR_PREL_PG_HI21 against symbol `_rtld_local' defined
>>> in .data section in /BLD/elf/librtld.os
>>>
>>> This is a gcc bug:
>>> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98618
>>>
>>> Rewriting the affected code in elf_get_dynamic_info
>>> seems to make this issue go away on old gcc.
>>>
>>> The change makes the logic a bit clearer too (by
>>> separating the index computation and array update)
>>> and drops an older gcc workaround (since gcc 4.6
>>> is no longer supported).
>>
>> So if I understood correctly this bug affects only gcc-8? Or
>> does it affect older version as well? From comment #3, Wilco stated
>
> affects gcc-7 and older gcc too, but i see this
> was not clear in my message.
>
>> it was fixed by on gcc-10, so I take it was backported to gcc-9
>> already (since you didn't see it on gcc-9).
>
> it seems to affect gcc-9 too, but a change in how
> constants are constructed seems to make it less
> likely to hit.
>
> i'll update the description.
Ok, thanks.
>
>>
>> I did a sniff build tests with different gcc (8 and 9 mostly) on
>> different architectures and it seems ok.
>>
>> LGTM with the just nit below about VERSYMIDX.
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org>
>>
> ...
>>> - while (dyn->d_tag != DT_NULL)
>>> + for (ElfW(Dyn) *dyn = l->l_ld; dyn->d_tag != DT_NULL; dyn++)
>>> {
>>> + d_tag_utype i;
>>> +
>>> if ((d_tag_utype) dyn->d_tag < DT_NUM)
>>> - info[dyn->d_tag] = dyn;
>>> + i = dyn->d_tag;
>>> else if (dyn->d_tag >= DT_LOPROC
>>> && dyn->d_tag < DT_LOPROC + DT_THISPROCNUM)
>>> - {
>>> - /* This does not violate the array bounds of l->l_info, but
>>> - gcc 4.6 on sparc somehow does not see this. */
>>> - DIAG_PUSH_NEEDS_COMMENT;
>>> - DIAG_IGNORE_NEEDS_COMMENT (4.6,
>>> - "-Warray-bounds");
>>> - info[dyn->d_tag - DT_LOPROC + DT_NUM] = dyn;
>>> - DIAG_POP_NEEDS_COMMENT;
>>> - }
>>> + i = dyn->d_tag - DT_LOPROC + DT_NUM;
>>
>> Ok.
>>> else if ((d_tag_utype) DT_VERSIONTAGIDX (dyn->d_tag) < DT_VERSIONTAGNUM)
>>> - info[VERSYMIDX (dyn->d_tag)] = dyn;
>>> + i = DT_VERSIONTAGIDX (dyn->d_tag) + DT_NUM + DT_THISPROCNUM;
>>
>> Why expand VERSYMIDX macro here?
>>
>
> for the same reason VALIDX and ADDRIDX are not used below:
> i think this makes it clearer what's going on, you don't
> have to look up these convenience macros in ldsodefs.h
> to verify that the checks are right.
>
> but i can undo this change.
I don't have a strong preference, but VERSYMIDX seems to be used in a
lot of place so it makes sense to be used where applicable.
>
>>> else if ((d_tag_utype) DT_EXTRATAGIDX (dyn->d_tag) < DT_EXTRANUM)
>>> - info[DT_EXTRATAGIDX (dyn->d_tag) + DT_NUM + DT_THISPROCNUM
>>> - + DT_VERSIONTAGNUM] = dyn;
>>> + i = DT_EXTRATAGIDX (dyn->d_tag) + DT_NUM + DT_THISPROCNUM
>>> + + DT_VERSIONTAGNUM;
>>
>> Ok.
>>
>>> else if ((d_tag_utype) DT_VALTAGIDX (dyn->d_tag) < DT_VALNUM)
>>> - info[DT_VALTAGIDX (dyn->d_tag) + DT_NUM + DT_THISPROCNUM
>>> - + DT_VERSIONTAGNUM + DT_EXTRANUM] = dyn;
>>> + i = DT_VALTAGIDX (dyn->d_tag) + DT_NUM + DT_THISPROCNUM
>>> + + DT_VERSIONTAGNUM + DT_EXTRANUM;
>>
>> Ok.
>>
>>> else if ((d_tag_utype) DT_ADDRTAGIDX (dyn->d_tag) < DT_ADDRNUM)
>>> - info[DT_ADDRTAGIDX (dyn->d_tag) + DT_NUM + DT_THISPROCNUM
>>> - + DT_VERSIONTAGNUM + DT_EXTRANUM + DT_VALNUM] = dyn;
>>> - ++dyn;
>>> + i = DT_ADDRTAGIDX (dyn->d_tag) + DT_NUM + DT_THISPROCNUM
>>> + + DT_VERSIONTAGNUM + DT_EXTRANUM + DT_VALNUM;
>>> + else
>>> + continue;
>>> +
>>> + info[i] = dyn;
>>> }
>>>
>>> #define DL_RO_DYN_TEMP_CNT 8
>>>
>>> #ifndef DL_RO_DYN_SECTION
>>>
>>
>> Ok.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2021-01-13 12:53 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2021-01-11 15:11 [PATCH] elf: work around a gcc bug in elf_get_dynamic_info Szabolcs Nagy
2021-01-12 17:52 ` Adhemerval Zanella
2021-01-13 9:10 ` Szabolcs Nagy
2021-01-13 12:53 ` Adhemerval Zanella
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).