From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9BF1A3858D20 for ; Fri, 17 May 2024 15:42:39 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 9BF1A3858D20 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 sourceware.org 9BF1A3858D20 Authentication-Results: server2.sourceware.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=170.10.129.124 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1715960561; cv=none; b=R+INqcxVpH8Iz/GnFYCdnRqlLiu5IXquZ6hQoEsOdm9V/pfHK7bD8hhmGGMi2yHuqIL9V/YGvXUOo4c/x23hsej2y/eNoAyyLjwMSTLosaMnJdqvyiMd9Ouf3SaO71pztXtPkifOZ1lzuWXHPbtz6XRuWPKkSLELxfdv4ETCSGk= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1715960561; c=relaxed/simple; bh=b+Nx05HVr/Z59vcfx9WkqXZwKf+/bHx9dtQXMO/KroY=; h=DKIM-Signature:From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version; b=Q1XiCcenhm1mCw28S4VL8PZpj5H9m5dS5QQpMRDv4Uup1EPXU+U1ajjcNuQKyLvq8h2ycei8hfJ1oiems72BDPE/Yx++yg6F5aDU6CS3JZg0eKRH6FJc6fthAzXfy01NV9eBAifUQB122jj/9Ai/WvfhSYwzTDOtlLuBUJwp7DM= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; server2.sourceware.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1715960559; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=4Wxd40X2TYNoSSU18LxO7u5TSIZ33hGGoiooWRz2stw=; b=UiKqV28I/eC33fp/Kx75lcR9QJxtzZzbQi1vcN4pQ2eWXSpmML7yxb/A23dwqd0UjN3DSf 0LBoyunX79mf3rZ+vdtinv3vdpDNyQEUmer6gjzTv7Izl6gcAe3OOy5UcSmkzU2OdTqCBC 0POcPP8JiQXg8wof4r6k0qfWrmevTZ8= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mx-ext.redhat.com [66.187.233.73]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-489-Hnok6G__OLujsGF4ojGG6A-1; Fri, 17 May 2024 11:42:35 -0400 X-MC-Unique: Hnok6G__OLujsGF4ojGG6A-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.4]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 86B281C05146; Fri, 17 May 2024 15:42:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from oldenburg.str.redhat.com (unknown [10.39.192.135]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BD1BC2026D68; Fri, 17 May 2024 15:42:33 +0000 (UTC) From: Florian Weimer To: Stefan Liebler Cc: GNU C Library , Javier Pello , Adhemerval Zanella Netto Subject: Re: Question regarding platform-bits in ld.so.cache In-Reply-To: <03313130-4acb-416b-935d-7432150287fd@linux.ibm.com> (Stefan Liebler's message of "Fri, 17 May 2024 15:22:56 +0200") References: <6fadccb2-8f24-4aee-aa38-29f0f7918250@linux.ibm.com> <87v83ck2c6.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> <03313130-4acb-416b-935d-7432150287fd@linux.ibm.com> Date: Fri, 17 May 2024 17:42:32 +0200 Message-ID: <878r08jvh3.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.4.1 on 10.11.54.4 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,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: * Stefan Liebler: > On 17.05.24 15:14, Florian Weimer wrote: >> * Stefan Liebler: >> >>> Is there a plan to also remove the usage in >>> elf/dl-cache.c:search_cache() and perhaps also _dl_string_platform(), >>> _DL_PLATFORMS_COUNT and _DL_HWCAP_PLATFORM at all? >> >> I think we should remove all this, it's just an oversight on my part >> that it's still there (certainly for the elf/dl-cache.c parts). > Thus this means that all entries which are no named/extension ones where > libnew->hwcap!=0 should be skipped? Yes, based on my recollection of the code, that would be the right way to simplify the code. > Then the tls, legacy-platform-bits and legacy-hwcap-entries are skipped. > Then the tunable hwcap_mask/LD_HWCAP_MASK is also not needed anymore? I think we still use that to alter the result of getauxval (AT_HWCAP), affecting the results of IFUNC resolvers within and outside of glibc on some architectures. Thanks, Florian