Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 22 Jun 2001 23:40:19 +0200 (CEST) | From | Luigi Genoni <> | Subject | Re: Is this part of newer filesystem hierarchy? |
| |
Again i am confused.
/usr/bin/ld is linker at compilation time, at it works how i told in second part of my mail, (just try to compile it, it comes with binutils, ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/devel/binutils).
/lib/d-2.2.X.so is what you are talking about. So should i think os an hack to ld-2.2.3.so ??
to see how it works loock at /usr/bin/ldd, it's an interesting script.
I can understand why old glibc 2.1 is not isered in the directories where ldconfig has to loock to create its db for loader, but there should be a corrispective /usr/i386-(redhat/glibc2.2???)-linux/ (with its subdirectories) for glibc 2.2, since it is necessary at compilation time. This do not change the problem which is related to /lib/ld-2.2.X.so. doing a strings /lib/ld-2.XXX you will find also
info[19]->d_un.d_val == sizeof (Elf32_Rel) info[20]->d_un.d_val == 17 /lib/ /usr/lib/ {ORIGIN} {PLATFORM} expand_dynamic_string_token dl-load.c
this is the interesting section of the output. This way you can check for an hack to the loader, but I think to something else instead of an hack.
I do not have a red hat here around, since i do prefer another style for my linux systems, so i cannot check by person.
Luigi Genoni
On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, D. Stimits wrote:
> Luigi Genoni wrote: > > > > I do not know if this is a new filesystem hierarchy, it should not be, > > at less untill lsb finishes all discussion (anyway it is similar to lsb > > standard). Your mail is a little confusing for me. Let's see if i can > > clarify my ideas. > > > > On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, D. Stimits wrote: > > > > > I found on my newer Redhat 7.1 distribution that glibc is being placed > > > differently than just /lib/. Here is the structure I found: > > > > > > /lib/ has: > > > libc-2.2.2.so (hard link) > > > libc.so.6 (sym link to above) > > > > > > A new directory appears, /lib/i686/ (uname -m is i686): > > > libc-2.2.2.so (a full hard link copy of /lib/ version) > > > libc.so.6 (sym link to hard link in this directory) > > > > > > The file size of /lib/libc-2.2.2.so is around 1.2 MB, while the size of > > > /lib/i686/libc-2.2.2.so is over 5 MB. The 5 MB version has symbols, > > > while the 1.2 MB version is stripped. > > > > > > Here is the peculiar part that I need to find out about. My > > > /lib/ld.so.conf does not contain the i686 directory in its path. Nor do > > > any local LD environment variables. Even so, "ldconfig -p" lists *only* > > > the libc.so.6 sym link, not the libc-2.2.2.so, and the one listed is for > > > the i686 subdirectory, not the /lib/ directory. How is it possible that > > > the i686 directory is being checked if it is not listed in ld.so.conf > > > and not part of any LD path variable? I am using a non-Redhat kernel > > > (patched 2.4.6-pre1), so I know it isn't a Redhat-ism related to the > > > kernel itself. My ld version: > > excuse, but if you do something like, > > ldd /bin/ls > > > > what do you get, which libc is loaded? > > :~# ldd /bin/ls > libtermcap.so.2 => /lib/libtermcap.so.2 (0x4002a000) > libc.so.6 => /lib/i686/libc.so.6 (0x4002e000) > /lib/ld-linux.so.2 => /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x40000000) > > The i686 subdirectory version is visible to the linker. I don't know > how. > > > > > have you got a file like /etc/ld.so.preload?? > > No. Nor are any preload or LD environment variables set. Something > Redhat has done is making the i686 subdirectory visible. Maybe ld > searches recursively? > > > basically you can use the stripped glibc (faster), but then, > > if you have troubles and you need to debug, just set the preload file, > > or use LD_PRELOAD variable to use > > the non stripped library. In princip it is not a stupid idea, > > not that i like it, but it is not stupid. > > Without any preload, it appears the linker is by default choosing the > debug version in the i686 subdirectory. Redhat must have mucked with it, > otherwise I don't see how it could be searching the i686 subdirectory > without any configuration customization (no preload, no LD environment > variables). But this is what I want to verify...where the "mucking" has > occurred, it is important to find out for some software that is used to > create custom and/or rescue disks. (alternately, to find out if there is > a predictable scheme, such as knowning ld is searching recursively, or > searches for /lib/{uname -m}) > > > > > > ~# ld --version > > > GNU ld 2.10.91 > > > Copyright 2001 Free Software Foundation, Inc. > > > This program is free software; you may redistribute it under the terms > > > of > > > the GNU General Public License. This program has absolutely no > > > warranty. > > > Supported emulations: > > > elf_i386 > > > i386linux > > > elf_i386_glibc21 > > > > > > Possibly Redhat altered ld? According to the man page, this directory > > > should not be found since it is not part of ld.so.conf, and also the > > > /lib/ version *should* be found (but isn't). What has changed, is it a > > > standard for filesystem hierarchy, or is it something distribution > > > specific? (I need to pass the answer along to someone working on > > > customized boot software that is currently being confused by this > > > distinction; there is a need to find a proper means to detect libc and > > > linker information) > > ld links dynamic libraries if the final extension is .so (usually a link), > > and uses the soname (usually a link too, created by ldconfig), for > > the binaries it generates, otherway it will use .a library archives. > > /usr/lib/libc.so (the file used by ld to link glibc), is a script. There > > are good reason for that, with libc5 it was a link to /lib/libc.so.5 > > (soname). > > ld loocks for .so files as is configured > > inside of the files in /usr/<arch/host name>/lib/ldscripts > > Interesting that there is a /usr/i386-glibc21-linux/ directory, but > glibc 2.2 is used. In /usr/i386-glibc21-linux/lib/ is file > libc-2.1.3.so, which matches this particular naming, but ldconfig -p > does not indicate this directory is searched. There is no ldscripts, > either as a file name or a directory name. The visible directory tree > there is: > /usr/i386-glibc21-linux/ as base, then these: > -- lib > `-- gcc-lib > `-- i386-redhat-linux > `-- 2.96 > `-- include > ->../../../../../lib/gcc-lib/i386-glibc21-linux/egcs-2.91.66/include > > > > > > > please note that usually for klibraries inside of /lib, the .so link is in > > /usr/lib, or at less it should. > > > > syntax is like: > > SEARCH_DIR(/lib); SEARCH_DIR(/usr/lib); SEARCH_DIR(/usr/local/lib); \ > > SEARCH_DIR(/usr/i386-slackware-linux/lib); > > > > (that is why you need to pass -L/usr/X11R6/lib to link X11 apps > > at runtime) anyway to load shared libraries is managed by > > /lib/ld-2.XXX.so, using > > the db created by ldconfig that uses /etc/ld.so.conf > > as its configuration file. > > There must be something more, since the i686 subdirectory is being > searched without ld.so.conf and without environment variables pointing > at it (e.g., recursive search from any named directory). > > D. Stimits, stimits@idcomm.com > > > > > Luigi Genoni > > > > - > > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ >
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |