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 CA6ED3858D1E for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2023 14:50:33 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org CA6ED3858D1E 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-23.myt.yp-c.yandex.net (mail-nwsmtp-smtp-production-main-23.myt.yp-c.yandex.net [IPv6:2a02:6b8:c12:1116:0:640:dcdb:0]) by forward500c.mail.yandex.net (Yandex) with ESMTP id D2E125F628; Wed, 29 Mar 2023 17:50:32 +0300 (MSK) Received: by mail-nwsmtp-smtp-production-main-23.myt.yp-c.yandex.net (smtp/Yandex) with ESMTPSA id VoJFVb3WrSw0-iqzpVStK; Wed, 29 Mar 2023 17:50:32 +0300 X-Yandex-Fwd: 1 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yandex.ru; s=mail; t=1680101432; bh=niOauYtBDSUTvBeWero3egX/A9EIZrxhYVZ8vW8Fg1g=; h=In-Reply-To:From:Date:References:To:Subject:Message-ID; b=tjdFYD/W3O0NGdpbjENN+/ZNe4HHGuHi6lGrQQWczODo+PoXX/N+rdJ4LziLJHlZ1 J7e+/JtdJ0C86tc43vVoMIQsdjCCwO8sk1tFodGEscW4xjq7pWCmhXdIQpE/heL7x9 AEXt3s8BeuS/7BTV3IoPeQzkQ9OW0ZKnsitfKFa4= Authentication-Results: mail-nwsmtp-smtp-production-main-23.myt.yp-c.yandex.net; dkim=pass header.i=@yandex.ru Message-ID: <840c2d32-8fd9-39fc-59d7-4552aaa8da39@yandex.ru> Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2023 19:50:30 +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 , Jonathon Anderson , libc-alpha@sourceware.org References: <20230318165110.3672749-1-stsp2@yandex.ru> <20230318165110.3672749-13-stsp2@yandex.ru> <3541bbd7-8a68-2064-bb63-2a921cfe3bb1@yandex.ru> <630fa17528c6050d60f524aa88ad5a057cae1603.camel@rice.edu> From: stsp In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 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 19:35, Carlos O'Donell пишет: > The fact that such binaries can be created is enough for me to raise > a sustained objection to the inclusion of dlmem(). Then someone needs to tell how exactly it can be created, and, more importantly, point in the implementation the place that will then break. I still am quite sure we have some horrible misunderstanding, but that misunderstanding is very unusual as I can't sense its roots. All elf segments are arranged to their vaddr's by the elf loader, not by the user. This is obvious, undisputable fact. You always tell me I want to lend that task to the user. No I don't. Why do you think I do? >> If you can't, then you go away. >> Do you accept that challenge? > Asking a developer to go away not the way consensus is built. I meant to say "after giving an ACK". :) OK, sorry if it happened to be a bad joke. But somehow I need to motivate Jonathon or anyone else to make a proof of the statements we have here. Otherwise we can't proceed. I still leave the second part of a challenge: if it is demonstrated that my patch doesn't arrange the segments per vaddr's, I'll go away forever. v9 has a few bugs in that area, but not even nearly as bad as to not relocate segments by vaddr's. > If consensus can't be reached then the API will not be included > in glibc. > > The real issue for me is that we are not providing a way for developers > to manage the complexity of the *setup* that is required before dlmem() > can operate reliably. No, its not the case. Its not the case and its not the case. And I don't know what to do, if I can't even ask someone to demonstrate why its the case. :)