musl - libc.so, Bsymbolic no longer necessary?

Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAOUYtQBsRrqx5xJ+ipoFy_AkW+7t3DSZAijWV+w+0fVLWu8uQQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2019 08:23:27 +0400
From: Jon Chesterfield <jonathanchesterfield@...il.com>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: libc.so, Bsymbolic no longer necessary?

Hey,

The early design notes for musl mention linking with Bsymbolic, which
seemed reasonable. I don't see that in the current Makefile, or the
equivalent protected visibility.

This seems to suggest that LD_PRELOAD can override calls to libc from
within libc. That seems dubious. Is there a use case for this? Or is it
avoided by the control flow in the loader itself?

I'm thinking of building the musl loader/libc elf with protected visibility
on the exported symbols and wondered whether I'm missing something.

Thanks,

Jon

Content of type "text/html" skipped

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.