lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Dec]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: What I suspect
       Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 23:57:53 -0800 (PST)
    From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@transmeta.com>

    So I still think pre-linking should be perfectly fine =without=
    checking weak symbols like Davem suggested. In fact, I'd argue that
    re-checking is the wrong thing to do from a "least surprises"
    standpoint.

    It's not an odd event. It's a feature... Say you want to provide
    your own special malloc, your strong "malloc" symbol now not only
    overrides the global references to the "malloc" symbol in the binary
    itself, but also all of those global references within libc too (and
    all other shared libraries you load, even via dl_open()). If you want
    to override any and all malloc activity (and this is useful for
    malloc/free leak debuggers like electric fence for example) this
    global weak overriding mechanism is the way it can be done.

    This is the specified ELF behavior, we didn't make this up. :-) And
    it's there so you can do things like "oh I want to override open() so
    it understands WWW urls" or things like my malloc example.

    Later,
    David S. Miller
    davem@redhat.com

    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:55    [W:0.019 / U:29.888 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site