about summary refs log tree commit diff
path: root/elf/dl-lookup.c
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorFlorian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>2023-05-30 13:25:50 +0200
committerFlorian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>2023-05-30 13:25:50 +0200
commitd0f07f7df8d9758c838674b70144ac73bcbd1634 (patch)
treebf73fe79a9c8491aa6646a5b194c57e20b6a0871 /elf/dl-lookup.c
parent3eed5f3a1ee356969afb403a1cf18d06f8d2d98a (diff)
downloadglibc-d0f07f7df8d9758c838674b70144ac73bcbd1634.tar.gz
glibc-d0f07f7df8d9758c838674b70144ac73bcbd1634.tar.xz
glibc-d0f07f7df8d9758c838674b70144ac73bcbd1634.zip
elf: Make more functions available for binding during dlclose (bug 30425)
Previously, after destructors for a DSO have been invoked, ld.so refused
to bind against that DSO in all cases.  Relax this restriction somewhat
if the referencing object is itself a DSO that is being unloaded.  This
assumes that the symbol reference is not going to be stored anywhere.

The situation in the test case can arise fairly easily with C++ and
objects that are built with different optimization levels and therefore
define different functions with vague linkage.

Reviewed-by: Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com>
Diffstat (limited to 'elf/dl-lookup.c')
-rw-r--r--elf/dl-lookup.c21
1 files changed, 19 insertions, 2 deletions
diff --git a/elf/dl-lookup.c b/elf/dl-lookup.c
index 05f36a2507..a8f48fed12 100644
--- a/elf/dl-lookup.c
+++ b/elf/dl-lookup.c
@@ -366,8 +366,25 @@ do_lookup_x (const char *undef_name, unsigned int new_hash,
       if ((type_class & ELF_RTYPE_CLASS_COPY) && map->l_type == lt_executable)
 	continue;
 
-      /* Do not look into objects which are going to be removed.  */
-      if (map->l_removed)
+      /* Do not look into objects which are going to be removed,
+	 except when the referencing object itself is being removed.
+
+	 The second part covers the situation when an object lazily
+	 binds to another object while running its destructor, but the
+	 destructor of the other object has already run, so that
+	 dlclose has set l_removed.  It may not always be obvious how
+	 to avoid such a scenario to programmers creating DSOs,
+	 particularly if C++ vague linkage is involved and triggers
+	 symbol interposition.
+
+	 Accepting these to-be-removed objects makes the lazy and
+	 BIND_NOW cases more similar.  (With BIND_NOW, the symbol is
+	 resolved early, before the destructor call, so the issue does
+	 not arise.).  Behavior matches the constructor scenario: the
+	 implementation allows binding to symbols of objects whose
+	 constructors have not run.  In fact, not doing this would be
+	 mostly incompatible with symbol interposition.  */
+      if (map->l_removed && !(undef_map != NULL && undef_map->l_removed))
 	continue;
 
       /* Print some debugging info if wanted.  */