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 51C3E3858428 for ; Tue, 9 Aug 2022 09:21:28 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 51C3E3858428 Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mx3-rdu2.redhat.com [66.187.233.73]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-303-rnnsHYqoMX28W_Od1qzpaA-1; Tue, 09 Aug 2022 05:21:24 -0400 X-MC-Unique: rnnsHYqoMX28W_Od1qzpaA-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.9]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9C6532919EA1; Tue, 9 Aug 2022 09:21:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from oldenburg.str.redhat.com (unknown [10.39.193.65]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 95223492C3B; Tue, 9 Aug 2022 09:21:23 +0000 (UTC) From: Florian Weimer To: Carlos O'Donell via Libc-alpha Subject: Re: Should we make DT_HASH dynamic section for glibc? References: <8c6fbd40-a0c6-d84f-4e5a-10e7109ffc08@linaro.org> Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2022 11:21:21 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Carlos O'Donell via Libc-alpha's message of "Mon, 8 Aug 2022 16:40:49 -0400") Message-ID: <87bkstn566.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.85 on 10.11.54.9 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, KAM_SHORT, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_NONE, TXREP, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) 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: Tue, 09 Aug 2022 09:21:29 -0000 * Carlos O'Donell via Libc-alpha: >> So the question is whether we should enforce at least on glibc by revert= ing >> e47de5cb2d4dbec. It does sounds muddle to keep this solely on glibc, wh= ere >> rest of the system is not enforcing it, and only for compatibility with = an >> obscure tools where there is no much information on why it requires it. > > The tool is EAC. > > It is EPICs "Easy Anti-Cheat" (https://www.easy.ac/en-us/) and like > other non-standard consumers it has to know some specific ELF details. > > The game "Rogue Company" is known to use EAC and is likely broken by > this change. I think there are several other glibc patches required to fix Rogue Company? (=E2=80=9Cglibc with reve= rts applied to allow Rogue Company to work with EasyAntiCheat=E2=80=9D) makes t= he following changes: =C2=B7 Install shared objects under traditional versioned nmaes. =C2=B7 Bring back various GLIBC_PRIVATE symbols. =C2=B7 Disable clone3. If EasyAntiCheat has been fixed for those, surely it can be fixed to use DT_GNU_HASH as well. THanks, Florian