From: David Huggins-Daines <dhd@linuxcare.com>
To: Alan Modra <alan@linuxcare.com.au>
Cc: Cary Coutant <cary@cup.hp.com>, parisc-linux@thepuffingroup.com
Subject: Function descriptors, etc. (was Re: [parisc-linux] userspace function pointers in the kernel)
Date: 13 Sep 2000 18:04:58 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <878zswj6d1.fsf@linuxcare.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: Pine.LNX.4.21.0009131447590.613-100000@front.linuxcare.com.au
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4770 bytes --]
Alan Modra <alan@linuxcare.com.au> writes:
> The model I'm thinking of for elf32-hppa is along these lines:
>
> o The linker creates a plt entry for all plabel relocs. plt entries for
> elf32-hppa are a function address, linkage table pointer pair, so
> there's no need for the dynamic linker to allocate fptrs.
> o A dynamic plabel reloc will have the function symbol, and an addend
> into the plt. This is a rather unusual reloc because the function
> symbol value is ignored when calculating the final value.
> o The dynamic linker builds a list or hash table of function symbols
> versus plt offsets, and adjusts plabels so that only one plt entry is
> ever used per function.
Reasons why the IA-64 scheme is better:
a) In the scheme above, we cannot index the list/table by the
code address of the function in the PLT slot, because the PLT
will usually not have been relocated at the point when PLABEL
relocations are being processed. Thus we have to:
1) Relocate PLT slots as we encounter them in PLABEL
relocations, or
2) Store a copy of the code address in the table apart
from the PLT slot, or
3) Index the table by the address of the Elf32_Sym
structure, by the symbol name (I think this is
fraught with peril), or by something else. This
also requires another field in the table apart from
the PLT slot.
b) The IA-64 code uses a one-to-one mapping of function code
addresses to function descriptors, not symbols to function
descriptors, and indexes the list/table by the code address.
I'm not sure whether this is important or not, but something
tells me it is.
c) We will still have to dynamically allocate function
descriptors for symbols obtained with dlopen() and dlsym().
First of all, we won't have a special PLABEL relocation, so we
would have to search the PLT of the loaded object "manually".
Also, think about the case where:
- libfoo.so defines foo() strongly
- libfoo2.so defines foo() weakly
- libfoo2.so defines bar() which calls foo()
- our program links against libfoo.so and libfoo2.so
- our program calls foo()
- our program calls bar()
- our program dlopen()s libfoo2.so
- our program calls dlsym(libfoo2, "foo")
- oops! the PLT slot for foo() in libfoo2.so points
to the strong definition in libfoo.so, so it's
useless as a function descriptor.
- I've attached a tarball of this testcase. Run it on
i386 and IA-64 and see what it does :-)
d) If we have to dynamically allocate function descriptors as
well as uniquify relocations to PLT slots, then we basically
have to duplicate the code in dl-fptr.c, and we lose.
Can we please use the IA-64 scheme or something very close to it?
(i.e. closer than what you've proposed, which, in attempting to
implement it in ld.so, does not appear to be close enough) It is
already implemented and debugged, I had it successfully working last
week modulo problems with initializers and finalizers, and I don't see
there being a significant gain in performance or memory usage with the
scheme outlined above.
What I suggest is the following:
* The linker still creates a PLT entry for all PLABEL relocs. This is
undoubtedly useful for local symbols, and allows us to take
advantage of lazy linking for them (potentially a big win in libc.so
which uses lots and lots of vtables).
* We don't have to generate dynamic function descriptors for PLABEL
relocations to local symbols because we know that their PLT entries
are and will remain unique to their code addresses. Again, a win.
* Dynamic PLABEL relocs will either be *ABS* or .plt relative and
pointing to the PLT slot for local symbols, or contain the function
symbol and no addend for global symbols. For the latter we will
generate unique function descriptors dynamically using the same code
as on IA-64. Yes, we lose 12 bytes of memory per global symbol this
way. I don't think that's a big deal given that it allows us to use
the same code path for these symbols and for dlsym().
* dlsym() will always generate a unique function descriptor dynamically.
I've implemented this and checked it in (it kludges around the addends
on global PLABEL relocations, that is easy to fix :-). It passes my
other tests but the one below causes the linker to segfault.
[-- Attachment #2: Interaction of dlsym() and weak dynamic symbols --]
[-- Type: application/x-gtar, Size: 1134 bytes --]
[-- Attachment #3: Type: text/plain, Size: 89 bytes --]
--
dhd@linuxcare.com, http://www.linuxcare.com/
Linuxcare. Support for the revolution.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2000-09-13 22:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2000-09-13 1:05 [parisc-linux] userspace function pointers in the kernel Cary Coutant
2000-09-13 3:27 ` David Huggins-Daines
2000-09-13 4:06 ` Alan Modra
2000-09-13 22:04 ` David Huggins-Daines [this message]
2000-09-14 0:22 ` Function descriptors, etc. (was Re: [parisc-linux] userspace function pointers in the kernel) Alan Modra
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=878zswj6d1.fsf@linuxcare.com \
--to=dhd@linuxcare.com \
--cc=alan@linuxcare.com.au \
--cc=cary@cup.hp.com \
--cc=parisc-linux@thepuffingroup.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.