Re: [RFC 0/2] __vdso_findsym

[Andy Lutomirski]

On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 8:42 AM, Rich Felker <dalias@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 08:31:39AM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 7:38 AM, Andi Kleen <andi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> I think this issue started when some of the Go developers questioned
>> >> why the kernel needed to provide a very complex interface--parsing an
>> >> ELF shared shared library--for very simple functionality--looking up
>> >> the address of a magic function.  This approach has required special
>> >> support not just in Go, but also in the dynamic linker and gdb, and
>> >> does not work well for statically linked binaries.  The support in gdb
>> >> is perhaps a good idea, but elsewhere it does not make sense.
>> >>
>> >> So why not provide a simple interface?
>> >
>> > What good would it do now that everyone already supports it?
>>
>> Do statically linked binaries use the vDSO calls?
>
> Under glibc, I believe so (not checked). Under musl, yes, and even in
> the dynamic-linked case we use the same code that's used for static
> linking rather than trying to get the dynamic linker to do them
> correctly. I still have some cruft lying around from where (in the
> past) we tried to do it via the dynamic linker, but I'm probably going
> to remove that and make the vdso behave as RTLD_LOCAL so that there's
> no risk of weird symbols it exports interfering with the application
> (applications could still make it global via an explicit dlopen). The
> only reason for keeping it around at all in the dynamic linker is for
> the sake of gdb.
>

What about backtrace_symbols, dl_addr, and the unwinder (e.g.
siglongjmp)?  It would be nice to wean the vdso off of frame pointers
some day.

--Andy
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/