[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CABV8kRxd4psKkZVvUDwhJqVGCvcONU-wkEUb8ccFCyinB__O8g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2022 18:19:48 -0400
From: Keno Fischer <keno@...iacomputing.com>
To: libc-coord@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Proposing dl* extensions with explicit caller specification
On Thu, Aug 4, 2022 at 6:44 PM Keno Fischer <keno@...iacomputing.com> wrote:
> Implementations without this extension that I surveyed (e.g. musl libc, FreeBSD
> libc), generally do not have caller dependence in dlopen (if there is one,
> I would love to know about it so I can add it to the list).
It was pointed out to me off-list that I somehow completely missed
(despite it being mentioned explicitly in my reference [4] - sigh) that Apple's
libc implementation of dlopen does look at the return address, despite
not providing dlmopen, and in fact does already have a (private)
dlopen_from interface. I had missed this in my survey, since I was
mostly looking at ELF implementations, but given that, it probably does
make sense to provide `dlopen_from` as well as `dlmopen_from`,
since the former already exists on Darwin.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
