Ratiu: A tale of two toolchains and glibc
Ratiu: A tale of two toolchains and glibc
Posted Oct 1, 2021 8:26 UTC (Fri) by immibis (subscriber, #105511)In reply to: Ratiu: A tale of two toolchains and glibc by Cyberax
Parent article: Ratiu: A tale of two toolchains and glibc
Posted Oct 1, 2021 8:38 UTC (Fri)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (14 responses)
In reality, dlclose() can NOT be implemented sanely. It's inherently racy and conflicts with things like TLS cleanup. E.g.: https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/glib/-/issues/1311
And not implementing broken-by-design features is honestly why I love musl-libc.
Posted Oct 1, 2021 21:40 UTC (Fri)
by immibis (subscriber, #105511)
[Link] (12 responses)
Posted Oct 1, 2021 22:10 UTC (Fri)
by NYKevin (subscriber, #129325)
[Link] (11 responses)
> An application writer may use dlclose() to make a statement of intent on the part of the process, but this statement does not create any requirement upon the implementation. When the symbol table handle is closed, the implementation may unload the executable object files that were loaded by dlopen() when the symbol table handle was opened and those that were loaded by dlsym() when using the symbol table handle identified by handle.
POSIX expressly permits dlclose to be a stub function that does nothing and returns zero. Any application which requires a different behavior is not portable. If you don't like that, go complain to the standards people.
[1]: https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/function...
Posted Oct 2, 2021 23:19 UTC (Sat)
by iainn (guest, #64312)
[Link] (10 responses)
Posted Oct 3, 2021 0:13 UTC (Sun)
by mpr22 (subscriber, #60784)
[Link] (9 responses)
This is not a rhetorical question; I will cheerfully accept an answer of "yes, and here it is" :)
Posted Oct 3, 2021 8:46 UTC (Sun)
by NYKevin (subscriber, #129325)
[Link] (3 responses)
* The only formal change in semantics after calling dlclose() is that the application is no longer permitted to dereference certain pointers. Perhaps it's a tad obvious, but a conformant application must not dereference those pointers. Therefore, the application is not permitted to assume that dereferencing those pointers will, say, generate SIGSEGV, trip a guard page, or have any other desired or undesired effect, because the standard flatly forbids such dereferencing in the first place.
Posted Oct 3, 2021 12:26 UTC (Sun)
by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389)
[Link] (1 responses)
Generally, I would think that the programming environment would need to explicitly support hot reloading of code. Something like Erlang comes to mind. Python attempts to support it with `reload()`, but things get…weird and I wouldn't really recommend it without a long list of caveats. Native code-targeting systems usually don't have the safety rails needed for such things.
Posted Oct 9, 2021 8:31 UTC (Sat)
by sionescu (subscriber, #59410)
[Link]
Posted Oct 3, 2021 23:09 UTC (Sun)
by immibis (subscriber, #105511)
[Link]
Beyond that, I know one application that uses it for hot software upgrade - specifically UnrealIRCD.
Posted Oct 3, 2021 12:57 UTC (Sun)
by iainn (guest, #64312)
[Link] (3 responses)
No, sorry, I was being a bit facetious.
But dlclose being unusable genuinely baffles me, coming from a high level (e.g. .NET) perspective. *Obviously* you want to be able to unload a plugin when you're done with it. In .NET you just use an AssemblyLoadContext.
Posted Oct 3, 2021 13:50 UTC (Sun)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (2 responses)
Because it does NOT support unloading of individual assemblies. You can "unload" the whole context but not individual assemblies.
Posted Oct 3, 2021 14:31 UTC (Sun)
by iainn (guest, #64312)
[Link] (1 responses)
You later Release() the whole context, which also cleans up any dependencies. That's a good thing.
Posted Oct 3, 2021 22:27 UTC (Sun)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link]
Second, ALC can not be unloaded forcefully. If it's in use, then "unload" method simply does nothing. This wholly depends on GC being able to enumerate all the references to the context.
Posted Oct 9, 2021 8:28 UTC (Sat)
by sionescu (subscriber, #59410)
[Link]
Posted Oct 9, 2021 8:25 UTC (Sat)
by sionescu (subscriber, #59410)
[Link]
Ratiu: A tale of two toolchains and glibc
Ratiu: A tale of two toolchains and glibc
Ratiu: A tale of two toolchains and glibc
> [...]
> Although a dlclose() operation is not required to remove any functions or data objects from the address space, neither is an implementation prohibited from doing so. [...]
Ratiu: A tale of two toolchains and glibc
Ratiu: A tale of two toolchains and glibc
Ratiu: A tale of two toolchains and glibc
* The caller is expressly forbidden from interpreting the handle returned by dlopen "in any way." This presumably includes comparing it for equality with other handles returned by dlopen. Therefore, a conformant implementation may return the same handle every time you dlopen the same file, and keep an internal reference count (which the non-normative section of the dlclose standard explicitly calls out as a thing that implementations may do). If dlclose does nothing, then you just omit the reference count.
* Conformant implementations are also permitted to reuse closed handles, and a conformant implementation could even keep track of which object files were opened in the past and conspire to reuse their handle values if they are ever reopened in the future. Of course, if dlclose does nothing, then that's not really much of a "conspiracy."
* Maybe you're short on memory and trying to reclaim it? Well, that's not a very good reason at all. The pages which dlclose would free are backed by an object file on disk. If those pages are not in active use, the kernel should drop them automatically under memory pressure.
* Maybe you're trying to implement some crazy mechanism where you can replace object files without stopping and restarting the applications which are using them? Eh, that's probably a pipe dream anyway. Stopping and restarting your app is way easier than carefully shutting down an entire module of your program and then starting it up again. Also, the stop/restart dance is a general pattern, well supported by tools such as APT and systemd.
Ratiu: A tale of two toolchains and glibc
Ratiu: A tale of two toolchains and glibc
Ratiu: A tale of two toolchains and glibc
Ratiu: A tale of two toolchains and glibc
Ratiu: A tale of two toolchains and glibc
Ratiu: A tale of two toolchains and glibc
Ratiu: A tale of two toolchains and glibc
Ratiu: A tale of two toolchains and glibc
Ratiu: A tale of two toolchains and glibc
