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 [170.10.133.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DC963389244C for ; Fri, 21 Jun 2024 11:56:18 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org DC963389244C 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 DC963389244C Authentication-Results: server2.sourceware.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=170.10.133.124 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1718970980; cv=none; b=WcAydFLo063SgpkLS+zfz1TumttmJF3w6V9JKTo/pRGxEpw+YIHH0wzChpWYeIvyiiu784d1bNEDyPZxwy2FFLG2xEjHEDnA2Iib7rD8Sb7triuHXBHDN/eZMfI/ZNfIaausK42jNm7wnXlI++xYuezXHadRRvBsk8HF4EAUAVQ= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1718970980; c=relaxed/simple; bh=lLE6DHBR3n3KAha4hWiE2jD4zp/xfRgmzqv/PQBBFBA=; h=DKIM-Signature:From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version; b=sHiwfzqH+rVgkOtb6O/eJN87BsmUmd5sIpBalKLdq6pmOSkuwQYo9++O2jrJF7fQeiAXIM1lNbcZM55N41YwdShl2nriFkXhXCaf+41Uyb7KIf4L5kOnTH5g48dODbEc0HtB2t8WqstjAY+CYrNxgdRXG/M30UpQs97bdNUEIYw= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; server2.sourceware.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1718970978; 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: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=YKAe5C7GdUjtAukZ1Rcb5nvPV7xwCwqKwU2s0E01RPU=; b=a69ZrYWqJ3tawM7rNowga9hvCkRz5txU+nchFofmhWEEZW+Hkr/AdUpIXVKnCC/8fq/ZBA CwgIyW/D+BHnJBwaLM7BIEUKpUHYRDjFqTZXyli9i2gzIbGEU8HjQ+ShmAAv5OXu2/ohBR kMHZ/YWz4s/GKPELgUj+q9q1V1LpqMU= Received: from mx-prod-mc-02.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (ec2-54-186-198-63.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com [54.186.198.63]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-450-dogwTrCyODixwENI_jJgBA-1; Fri, 21 Jun 2024 07:56:16 -0400 X-MC-Unique: dogwTrCyODixwENI_jJgBA-1 Received: from mx-prod-int-03.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (mx-prod-int-03.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com [10.30.177.12]) (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 mx-prod-mc-02.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 550DF195608D; Fri, 21 Jun 2024 11:56:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from oldenburg.str.redhat.com (unknown [10.39.194.179]) by mx-prod-int-03.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0875C1955D82; Fri, 21 Jun 2024 11:56:13 +0000 (UTC) From: Florian Weimer To: =?utf-8?Q?Bj=C3=B8rn?= Mork via Libc-help Cc: =?utf-8?Q?Bj=C3=B8rn?= Mork Subject: Re: What's the point having GLIBC_ABI_DT_RELR? In-Reply-To: <87wmmia62l.fsf@miraculix.mork.no> (=?utf-8?Q?=22Bj=C3=B8rn?= Mork via Libc-help"'s message of "Fri, 21 Jun 2024 13:28:02 +0200") References: <875xu2bufd.fsf@miraculix.mork.no> <87jziiwnsy.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> <87wmmia62l.fsf@miraculix.mork.no> Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2024 13:56:10 +0200 Message-ID: <87frt6wlut.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.0 on 10.30.177.12 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=-2.1 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,RCVD_IN_SBL_CSS,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,TXREP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: * Bj=C3=B8rn Mork via Libc-help: > [ dropped Peter's Cc as his email seems defunct ] > > Florian Weimer writes: >> * Bj=C3=B8rn Mork via Libc-help: >> >>> Isn't the whole GLIBC_ABI_DT_RELR test just unnecessarily preventing >>> glibc from loading libraries with DT_RELR? Any glibc version testing >>> for it will also support DT_RELR. So it would have worked fine if it >>> weren't for the test. Looks like unnecessary forced breakage - there >>> must be something I'm missing. But what? >> >> The purpose of the check is to stop the proliferation of binaries that >> crash when loaded by glibc versions that do not support DT_RELR. > > Thanks. Is this a crash on load, or will (some of) those binaries load > successfully and then mysteriously crash later? It's a mysterious crash. Even with symbols and GDB, it's difficult to figure out what is going on because the symptoms are quite unusual: some pointers in global data are null because initialization has not been performed. These null pointers may end up at very distant places before the crash. Thanks, Florian