From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <hjl.tools@gmail.com>
Received: from mail-pf1-x436.google.com (mail-pf1-x436.google.com
 [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::436])
 by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CBD2B3858C27;
 Mon, 18 Oct 2021 22:43:23 +0000 (GMT)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org CBD2B3858C27
Received: by mail-pf1-x436.google.com with SMTP id k26so15918342pfi.5;
 Mon, 18 Oct 2021 15:43:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=1e100.net; s=20210112;
 h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date
 :message-id:subject:to:cc;
 bh=R9nwhCl2KQQM7c+rJ4ugCfhBSJbaQogdW7fwL+6jsOY=;
 b=USoaIbha2L6gFfYLMqnQvYpGuTXe1w1O+Cmi0cCnNvvIoEjYUriJm345kHuVlkteGu
 CiAVOxubLiEpCC2CGicXCBbBpYBRihpdThaxqrBbrrb/eF6doRKpkD5Ov6a2127GH4IH
 BjMoMnC4DzfHzAr9iRjkI7Uj+HNHZJ3Kc/aQNSmzfjsxNhopRUXriLVqI2dTyNHz7a9a
 38gpmTitM/ChkkDAqyIrC7AGYsVKs5u0ttPb0Vk5VE8E5VYqpsDzK+fqBGrCn+Znx9do
 tZwx2AlT/CGQNdsf1Ca5T/J6eJhx7bUgCw8DgisgppezQqbOu27zejDYS6tV7Y3Y+SkL
 NaPQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532SDrImyXO19oxiNRBVioHL+ifiY2ohT5IHXbxCifvgXx7QY2aF
 7qAik/fmyTlC1bTwhnwY2tlukupkVgmPqU1WYqOPjbIQ
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyV7VVxo0Gck9p7hCN6uthaCCSS4qHFYTLGvc+1MXjdwkeC7b0jqUQ4hOc37HV7Z/G+ehptMK9871KrhgQN2GQ=
X-Received: by 2002:a63:6116:: with SMTP id v22mr25742428pgb.225.1634597002815; 
 Mon, 18 Oct 2021 15:43:22 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20211017005020.2645717-1-maskray@google.com>
 <CAMe9rOoEbpYvRqh17uSWEXUNwgVZX1w0xPAEdKAFeg7upkmtPg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFP8O3KXHykpne-wxx-8e=2ycth4TcKwToTXOOtuJ2Uak+vn3Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMe9rOqFBxQN6v66fUTNwpB_69WUfWiX=uC7EWnog9Y4gEf48A@mail.gmail.com>
 <20211018181530.yz62n64dgn2kd4oe@google.com>
 <CAMe9rOoAgh-my99VxGZ+DMNfhp-HrN325VT1O=XtOpQkj_CPgw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20211018191902.vcf3u5s7h5losxyt@google.com>
 <CAMe9rOpmPadindpgnYt4RNu4Sf8tHQVbq6Xi57T5MpqQ1YSrKg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFP8O3+L0RyQqsv2AqoCs8xFUu3yJFrF7tSmSjh_wToDWTJupw@mail.gmail.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.22.394.2110182104030.114463@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>
 <CAMe9rOpS26-_4W5NFZrf+jasFJuGvMOOOif+458T9KWHNmXdBQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.22.394.2110182229250.139834@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.22.394.2110182229250.139834@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>
From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2021 15:42:46 -0700
Message-ID: <CAMe9rOqNE9AyxdEYWJJy=BEd=EkYMP-+d=Yxc753=WN-X9OafA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] elf: Support DT_RELR relative relocation format [BZ
 #27924]
To: Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com>
Cc: GNU C Library <libc-alpha@sourceware.org>,
 Binutils <binutils@sourceware.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3024.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED,
 DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, FREEMAIL_FROM, 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 <libc-alpha.sourceware.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://sourceware.org/mailman/options/libc-alpha>,
 <mailto:libc-alpha-request@sourceware.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libc-alpha/>
List-Post: <mailto:libc-alpha@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:libc-alpha-request@sourceware.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://sourceware.org/mailman/listinfo/libc-alpha>,
 <mailto:libc-alpha-request@sourceware.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2021 22:43:26 -0000

On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 3:30 PM Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 18 Oct 2021, H.J. Lu via Libc-alpha wrote:
>
> > If a binary requires a new glibc to run, running it with the old glibc will
> > lead to an ld.so diagnostic message.   DT_RELR shouldn't be different.
>
> My point is that in many cases (for example, a binary using a new flag as
> an argument to a function taking a flags argument) it *won't* lead to an
> ld.so diagnostic message, just to the relevant function call misbehaving
> at runtime.

Do you have such a testcase?  It sounds like a glibc bug to me.


-- 
H.J.