Re: [PATCH] Add implicit lib requirements to LDLIBS

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Wed, 2010-03-31 at 11:15 -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-03-31 at 09:21 -0400, Joshua Brindle wrote:
> > Eamon Walsh wrote:
> > > On 03/30/2010 05:08 PM, Joshua Brindle wrote:
> > >> Fedora 13 changed their linker behavior to not link indirect libraries.
> > >> See information at: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/UnderstandingDSOLinkChange
> > >>
> > >
> > > I skimmed over semodule.c and setsebool.c and I didn't see any
> > > references to bzip2 or ustr symbols.  My reading of the article suggests
> > > the below fix should only be needed if that were the case.  Most likely
> > > I missed them?
> > >
> > 
> > The link above is confusing. The change was made so that people who 
> > _did_ use eg., libxml but didn't explicitly link against it would have 
> > to do so even if other libraries they link against already did.
> > 
> > In our case it means that anything libsemanage needs semodule and 
> > setsebool will also need to link against explicitly.
> > 
> > Here is another page about the "feature":
> > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/ChangeInImplicitDSOLinking
> > 
> > The summary pretty much covers it I think:
> > ""Change DSO-linking semantics of the gcc compiler. Previously calls to 
> > the linker (ld) from gcc would result in dangerous default behaviour 
> > where ld would attempt to implicitly satisfy link requirements. The 
> > proposed change will prevent ld from automatically searching in the 
> > dependencies of linked objects.""
> > 
> > > Without this patch, do you get the linker error that says to add them?
> > >
> > 
> > Yes. It complains about missing bz2 and ustr symbols on my F13 system.
> 
> This doesn't seem right to me either, and I don't quite understand why
> Dan wouldn't have encountered it already if it was an issue.
> 
> As I read it, the change in behavior should only affect the program if
> the program makes calls to symbols in the library and was previously
> implicitly getting a dependency through another library.  But if the
> program makes no calls to the library in question, it shouldn't need to
> link against it.

See:
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2010-January/129131.html

-- 
Stephen Smalley
National Security Agency


--
This message was distributed to subscribers of the selinux mailing list.
If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.

[Index of Archives]     [Selinux Refpolicy]     [Linux SGX]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Yosemite Photos]     [Yosemite Camping]     [Yosemite Campsites]     [KDE Users]     [Gnome Users]

  Powered by Linux