Re: [PATCH v9 0/13] implement dlmem() function

[stsp <stsp2@yandex.ru>]

Adhemerval,

14.04.2023 00:12, Adhemerval Zanella Netto пишет:
>> I admit you probably couldn't do that initially,
>> because I poorly documented my API. But
>> when Carlos asked for a more detailed spec,
>> I did. Now you can express your objections
>> in a detailed manner, let me even attach
>> the prev API draft to help you doing that.
>> Of course this draft will be simplified a lot,
>> but for such a "generic" objections please
>> use its current form.
> The problem is not a poor documented ABI, the ABI itself has inherent
> corner cases brought multiple times.

By whom?
Where?
You referred to some 10 years old thread,
where I didn't even participated. Is it too
much to ask to at least point me to a particular
comment in that thread?


>    The problem you are trying to
> solve would be better served with a custom loader.

I wish to have a custom loader.
But so far I don't know how to make it
friendly to glibc. Custom loader needs
to be able to create a link-map, and glibc
currently doesn't have a hook to do that.
I currently only know how to create a
custom loader that works until glibc
changes either struct link_map or struct
rtld_global_ro. Such custom loader can
be done, but it won't be very reliable.

>> I have expressed the plans at removing all the
>> corner cases that Szabolcs pointed to. If you
>> point more, I'll definitely take an actions.
>> Off-loading the biggest part to RTLD_NORELOC
>> will reduce the proposal considerably, avoid
>> the callback and most of other complexity, so
>> why such a prejudice? Why can't we just discuss,
>> amend, see what happens?
> The RTLD_NORELOC itself is not a better approach, is just moving the
> same corner cases that we brought to a different symbol... against
> walking in cycles.

Why not to show these problems?
Szabolcs always does. You always assert on
their existence, as if I have no right to even
ask what they are. Maybe they are obvious, maybe
I have to realize them w/o asking, but I can't,
I am a novice.
Please, pretty please, can you detail those problems?
It would be best if you detail them with the
reference to my drafts - then I'll immediately
understand.


> Do not bother, I think the best course of action is just to drop
> the RFE.
Why is that constructive?
Well is not for Szabolcs, I could suspect its
just me. But now if he points to the problems
promptly, then I am sure its possible to do.