On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 03:59:39PM +0000, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: > On 15/05/2019 16:37, Rich Felker wrote: > > On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 05:12:11PM +0200, Christophe Lyon wrote: > >> On Wed, 15 May 2019 at 16:37, Rich Felker <dal...@libc.org> wrote: > >>> On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 01:55:30PM +0000, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: > >>>> can support both normal elf and fdpic elf so you can test/use > >>>> an fdpic toolchain on a system with mmu, but this requires > >>>> different dynamic linker name ..otherwise one has to run > >>>> executables in a chroot or separate mount namespace to change > >>>> the dynamic linker) > >>> > >>> Indeed, it's a bad idea to make them clash. > >>> > >> > >> Not sure to understand your point: indeed FDPIC binaries work > >> on a system with mmu, provided you have the right dynamic > >> linker in the right place, as well as the needed runtime libs (libc, > >> etc....) > >> > >> Do you want me to change anything here? > > > > I think the concern is that if the PT_INTERP name is the same for > > binaries with different ABIs, you wouldn't be able to have both > > present in the same root fs, and this would make it more of a pain to > > debug fdpic binaries on a full (with-mmu) host. > > > > musl always uses a different PT_INTERP name for each ABI combination, > > so I guess the question is whether uclibc or whatever other libc > > you're intending people to use would also want to do this. > > glibc uses different names now for new abis, so i was expecting > some *_DYNAMIC_LINKER update, but it seems uclibc always uses > the same fixed name > > /lib/ld-uClibc.so.0 > > i guess it makes sense for them since iirc uclibc can change > its runtime abi based on lot of build time config so having > different name for each abi variant may be impractical.
Yes, this "feature" of uclibc was was of the key motivations behind the creation of musl... :-) Rich
