From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/4224 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Szabolcs Nagy Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: libc.so symbols that are not reserved Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 05:07:36 +0100 Message-ID: <20131112040736.GQ1685@port70.net> References: <20131112013946.GP1685@port70.net> <20131112025540.GN24286@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1384229266 14382 80.91.229.3 (12 Nov 2013 04:07:46 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 04:07:46 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-4228-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Tue Nov 12 05:07:52 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Vg5Ga-0004tI-Gj for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Tue, 12 Nov 2013 05:07:52 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 24511 invoked by uid 550); 12 Nov 2013 04:07:49 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Original-Received: (qmail 24485 invoked from network); 12 Nov 2013 04:07:48 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20131112025540.GN24286@brightrain.aerifal.cx> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:4224 Archived-At: * Rich Felker [2013-11-11 21:55:40 -0500]: > On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 02:39:47AM +0100, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: > > i filtered nm -D libc.so for posix name space violations > > and compared the results (weak symbols were omitted), some > > of these should be fixed > > I'm unclear on why you consider them violations. They do not conflict > with symbols in the application or in third-party libraries. This can > easily be verified. Basically, symbols in shared libraries always act > like weak symbols would in static linking (this may be a poor > approximation of the reality, but it's close enough to be a useful way > of thinking about it). ok i didnt think it through > What would in principle be problematic is if standard C or POSIX > functions in libc depended on any of these symbols, since an > application could interpose unrelated functionality with the same > name. In practice that doesn't matter for dynamic linking since > -Bsymbolic is used, but it would matter for static linking of course. > As far as I know musl has no such issues (except for treating dup3, > pipe2, etc. as if they were in POSIX since they will be in the next > issue; if you object to that I'm not opposed to adding __-prefixed > versions). actually dup3 is __ prefixed already so the only exceptions are pipe2 stdin stdout stderr getservbyname_r getservbyport_r if pipe2 and dup3 are in the next standard then i dont think they have to be weak