Re: [RFC 0/2] __vdso_findsym

Symbol versioning so we can rev the ABI and still provide backwards compatibility.  Weak symbols so the libc can override symbols if it considers it appropriate.  This is a good thing.

On June 15, 2014 11:20:41 AM PDT, Andy Lutomirski [off-list ref] wrote:

cc: Andi Kleen, who designed the vdso

On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 10:57 AM, H. Peter Anvin [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On 06/15/2014 10:40 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:

quoted

To be clear, I have no desire whatsoever to give the vdso an actual
ELF parser or anything else that userspace should be providing

itself.

quoted

quoted

I think that a special-purpose vdso parser in the vdso makes some
sense, though, since userspace might otherwise provide one for the
sole purpose of parsing the vdso.

And there's plenty of reasons that having the vdso be an ELF image

is

quoted

quoted

useful.  For one thing, gdb can take advantage of it.  For another,
CRIU is parsing it for a rather different reason, and something like
__vdso_findsym won't fill that need.

Also, given the general lack of a comprehensible specification of

what

quoted

quoted

the GNU flavor of the ELF format actually is [1], there's something

to

quoted

quoted

be said for reducing the proliferation of ELF parsers.  glibc and
binutils are quite unlikely to become incompatible with each other,
but I sincerely doubt that anyone from binutils land is likely to
review (and maintain!) my ELF parser, Go's, or a hypothetical future
ELF parser from any of the other glibc-less things.  If those things
use one that's in the kernel, then it's easy for the kernel to
guarantee that each vdso image can successfully parse itself.

[1] The only comprehensible description of the GNU hash extension

that

quoted

quoted

I could find is on Oracle's blog (!)

Yes, but that is why we provide the standard SysV hash.  The GNU hash

is

quoted

not too bad, but you're absolutely right the documentation stinks.

Providing a simple symbol lookup is an opportunistic thing, and might

be

quoted

useful that way, and only because (as you say) the version in the

vdso

quoted

would only need to be guaranteed to parse a single data structure --
that same vdso.

On the other hand, it better work, correctly, in every version of the
kernel, so I believe it will need to be done such that it is either
correct by construction or gets self-tested during the build process

so

quoted

it errors out on failure.

I was thinking of adding something to selftests that would check that
__vdso_findsym can find every exported symbol, check that it can't
find the ones it shouldn't find, and call it on a bunch of garbage
strings to make sure it rejects them.

quoted

One simple way to do correct by construction
would be to do the "vdso entry point by index" -- a new kind of

system

quoted

call numbers, in effect, as much as it has shades of Windows DLL with
their "ordinal numbers".

It's certainly easy.  It's a little gross, and I sort of feel bad
about having two parallel ways of referring to a vdso function -- one
used by ELF parsers and one used by the new thing.  Using an array
also wins on speed and code size.  *sigh* -- I'm torn on this one.

Do you know why the vdso uses symbol versioning and weak symbols in
the first place?  This seems to date back all the way to the beginning
(2aae950b21e4bc789d1fc6668faf67e8748300b7).  If we're going to add a
new way to find vdso symbols, I would like to at least drop support
for versions.

--Andy

-- 
Sent from my mobile phone.  Please pardon brevity and lack of formatting.