From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.3 required=5.0 tests=MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 6255 invoked from network); 22 May 2020 17:33:17 -0000 Received: from mother.openwall.net (195.42.179.200) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 22 May 2020 17:33:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 12139 invoked by uid 550); 22 May 2020 17:33:13 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-ID: Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com Received: (qmail 12118 invoked from network); 22 May 2020 17:33:13 -0000 Date: Fri, 22 May 2020 13:33:00 -0400 From: Rich Felker To: Harald Welte Cc: musl@lists.openwall.com Message-ID: <20200522173300.GX1079@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <20200521202253.GC601762@nataraja> <20200521204048.GJ1079@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20200521211927.GE601762@nataraja> <20200521214948.GL1079@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20200522165006.GR2993937@nataraja> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200522165006.GR2993937@nataraja> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Subject: Re: [musl] MUSL ignores__attribute__((constructor(priority))) ? On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 06:50:06PM +0200, Harald Welte wrote: > Hi Rich, > > On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 05:49:48PM -0400, Rich Felker wrote: > > > According to the OpenWRT build I have been provided by a 3rd party, it's > > > using musl-1-1.23. > > > > Can you confirm this to make sure we're not debugging an issue that's > > long since fixed? Run /lib/ld-musl-armhf.so.1 as a command and it will > > print its version. > > *sigh*. It was 1.1.20. This specific (vendor) OpenWRT tree was broken in that > it used the 1.1.20 source code but called the generated packages and > path names 1.1.23 :/ > > After updating the sources to actual 1.1.23, the constructor order is > correct and I can run the unmodified libraries + application just like > on glibc. > > Sorry for the noise then. Normally if something is named 1.1.23 you > assume it also is 1.1.23 inside... OK, I'll inquire with OpenWRT about what's going on here.. > > FWIW the only standards that musl purports to actually adhere to are > > C, POSIX, and IEEE 754 (as referenced by C Annex F). While ELF is the > > binary format used and we aim to use it in compatible ways so as not > > to be gratuitously breaking, there are a lot of details that do not > > match historical SysV behavior (this is also true on glibc to a lesser > > extent), e.g. historical RPATH vs RUNPATH difference, LD_* vars, etc. > > Does that explain why trying to LD_PRELOAD libtalloc didn't fix the > ordering either? It was one humble attempt at manually overriding the > order (on 1.1.20). Yes, old behavior was execution in reverse load order. This gave something like dependency order for some very simple dependency structures, but for LD_PRELOAD it resulted in the preloaded library's ctors running _last_. Rich