From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qk1-x72f.google.com (mail-qk1-x72f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::72f]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 72E1E3858412 for ; Mon, 20 Dec 2021 21:09:37 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 72E1E3858412 Received: by mail-qk1-x72f.google.com with SMTP id 132so10630484qkj.11 for ; Mon, 20 Dec 2021 13:09:37 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent:subject :content-language:to:cc:references:from:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=JczuJ0WEim6QKZDi40HdwJ4enWiAtG4w4Nf6W+RX3bY=; b=Ih7yWalyMIMtRz2Vo6RZbW68HRVgegEaasr98igkWcbGS3v5A6TBJ7o/B3bswpEB9H GpuMOQQ0M6xxGahaV2USY1FF4enrn959df3p6QCrvWqjquVPWggrAYFwnxYkJ3UdX4k3 bJRoD5C/yuWE2iFJ91dmg3SyeE7kV+Lxb0I31ZVcwx8JCDlkJLMp8uadLnD7q7ROWERS xbhZ31pNK+zg4i1RCrF24e83goVK6Sk0Tca0BalCmFu0LM7YJr4nyxsWEmI8dpLmxbxS lcdpJylGuFUbrTyST1Q9GkWTnGZOPQ9qCzrhb6sRIp96IsuYGwd25APZ087rvj+DJ5T3 4cwg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530l38ZEYdV0dm/DimcoLovegJpW7ev7BEVY+nzvfV/HbB3QQhza 3M1kHZODkaJrrUTf78GUqV0iwA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJziLAPadyXkB29RV8ewxUIcPkqog09P8G7h820JRO3MKeibl5RMaCfs8OikLX+HFQ9NIYpPkQ== X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:2697:: with SMTP id c23mr15120qkp.103.1640034576974; Mon, 20 Dec 2021 13:09:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPV6:2804:431:c7cb:3b1e:762b:24f5:94b:4e15? ([2804:431:c7cb:3b1e:762b:24f5:94b:4e15]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a16sm15752023qta.94.2021.12.20.13.09.35 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 20 Dec 2021 13:09:36 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <6d362e31-3144-3a3a-df63-ec82d7fe8920@linaro.org> Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2021 18:09:34 -0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.4.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 18/20] elf: Issue la_symbind() for bind-now (BZ #23734) Content-Language: en-US To: Florian Weimer Cc: libc-alpha@sourceware.org, John Mellor-Crummey , Ben Woodard References: <20211115183734.531155-1-adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org> <20211115183734.531155-19-adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org> <87a6gvf5kg.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> <16d66938-9a41-1982-58f8-72c0259cc891@linaro.org> <87bl1bdm3k.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> From: Adhemerval Zanella In-Reply-To: <87bl1bdm3k.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, NICE_REPLY_A, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: libc-alpha@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Libc-alpha mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2021 21:09:41 -0000 On 20/12/2021 18:04, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Adhemerval Zanella: > >>> And then we'll have to make this change conditional on the la_version >>> return value, I think. >> >> My understanding from previous discussion is we don't want to support mixed >> lav versions, so bumping the minimal version should be suffice. It would >> required older modules to be rebuild against a newer glibc, but I think >> it should be ok. > > I'm concerned that this change might trip older audit modules, breaking > them until their sources are adjusted to cope with additional symbind > callbacks. See the sotruss code I cited, it really does not expect > BIND_NOW symbind. My impression on previous discussions is due the restricted users we do not add to add the complexity of lav versioning and the backward support. > >>> I don't understand why this is needed. Can we indeed use the profiling >>> trampoline with a BIND_NOW binding? If not, then we shouldn't need the >>> allocation of l_reloc_result, either. We should patch in the changed >>> symbol variable directly, not going through l_reloc_result. >> >> I does not indeed, I just did it to avoid adjusting _dl_audit_symbind. But >> I agree that not requiring allocate l_reloc_results for bind-now is a better >> strategy. I will fix it. > > Thanks. > > Florian >