I have an issue I don't know how to solve.
I have ever written a program (Python script) which returns a list of dynamic libraries with all the executables using them.
(My script uses the ldd utility).
Now, I'd like to do a program which would return a list of functions of dynamic libraries with all the executables using them.
But how can I do that ??
(I think the main problem is that libraries are build and to do that I need source code, right ?)
Thanks !!
JC
If you have ldd you should also have nm. This will list symbols in a binary, executable or shared object alike assuming symbols are included. This tool reports the function names indicating both local and external dependency information. You should be able to use this to do what you want.
Related
I have a program written in C that uses dlopen for loading plug-in modules. When the library is dynamically loaded, it runs constructor code which register pointer to structure with function implementations with the main application by use of exported function. I want to use absolute path for specifying the file to dlopen.
Then I have other part of the program with takes file, determine if it is ELF, then looks into the ELF header for specific ELF section, read this section and extract from it pertinent information. This way it filters only shared libraries which I have previously tagged as a plug-in module.
However, I am solving a problem how to discover them on the fly (in portable Linux way, i.e. it will run on Debian and on Fedora too and so on) from the main program. I have been thinking about using ldconfig for this. (As the modules will be installed by way of distro packaging system, APT for example.) Is there any way how to programmatically get the string list of known libraries from C program other than directly reading the /etc/ld.co.cache file? I was thinking that maybe there is some header library which will give char** when I ask.
Or, maybe is there any better solution to my problem?
(I am proponent of using standard system components that programming one-off solutions which will need support in the future.)
So I'm trying to wrap my head around static and dynamic linking. There are many resources on SO and on the web. I think I pretty much get it, but there's still one thing that seems to bother me. Also, please correct me if my overall understanding is wrong.
I think I understand static linking:
The linker unpacks the linked libraries, and actually includes the libraries' object files inside the produced executable. The unresolved-stubs in the application object files are then replaced by actual function-calling code, which calls functions in addresses known at build time.
Dynamic linking on the other hand is what puzzles me more: I understand that in dynamic linking, the stubs in the object-code which reference yet-unresolved names, are going to stay as stubs until runtime.
Then at runtime, the dynamic loader of the OS would look through precompiled libraries stored at standard filesystem locations. It would look in the object-files of the libraries, inside their symbol tables (?) and try to find a matching function definition for each unresolved-stub. It would then load the matching object-files into memory, and replace the stubs to point to the function definitions.
So the part I'm missing is this: where does the OS dynamic loader look - does it look in the symbol tables for all object-files in the system-libraries directory? Or does it only look in object-files specified somewhere in the application-executable file? Is this the reason why at compile time we must specify all dynamic dependencies of our program? Also, is it true dynamic libraries expose a symbol-table too?
So the part I'm missing is this: where does the OS dynamic loader look
- does it look in the symbol tables for all object-files in the system-libraries directory?
No dynamic linker I'm aware of does this.
Or does it only look in object-files
specified somewhere in the application-executable file?
Nor exactly this, either.
Details vary, but generally, a dynamic linker looks for specific shared libraries by name in various directories. The directories searched may be built into the linker, specified by the operating system, specified in the object being linked, or a combination. The linker does not (generally) examine libraries' symbol tables until after it locates them by name and selects them for linking.
Is this the
reason why at compile time we must specify all dynamic dependencies of
our program?
Yes, though under some circumstances we do not need to specify all dynamic dependencies at compile time. Some dynamic linkers support on-demand dynamic loading as directed by the program itself. This can be used to implement plugin systems, among other purposes.
Also, is it true dynamic libraries expose a symbol-table
too?
Yes. Dynamic libraries have their own symbol tables because
The dynamic linker uses them to do its work, and
Dynamic libraries can have their own dynamic linking requirements, which are not necessarily reflected in the main program's.
In the normal usage, "dynamic linking" is performed by the loader. "Static linking" is performed by the linker.
Generally, linkers can create either executable files or shared libraries. The linker output for both is an instruction stream that tells the loaders how to place the executable or library in memory.
Dynamic linking on the other hand is what puzzles me more: I understand that in dynamic linking, the stubs in the object-code which reference yet-unresolved names, are going to stay as stubs until runtime
That is not [usually] correct. The linker will locate the shared library in which the symbol exists. The executable will have an instruction to find the symbol in that shared library. Linkers generally puke if they cannot find all the symbols that need to be resolved.
So the part I'm missing is this: where does the OS dynamic loader look - does it look in the symbol tables for all object-files in the system-libraries directory?
This a system specific question. In well designed operating systems, the shared libraries are designated by the system manager. The loader uses the library specified by the system. Poorly designed systems frequently use some kind of search path to find the shared libraries (which created a massive security hole).
The background is following: there is 3'rd party provider that provides us with a libveryfancylib.so, in 32b. Softaware that uses the library has quite a load of other linux library dependencies (like QT) also, but they are open source, so no problem for statical linking. The target platform is 64b and running Debian 7.
We can ship the program with binary + dynamical libraries, no problem, but i would rather see single static binary with no dependencies.
So my question is: why i cannot link the dynamical library into static binary? I mean what bit of information is there missing, or is it just feature that is rarely needed -> not implemented.
We can ship the program with binary + dynamical libraries, no problem, but i would rather see single static binary with no dependencies.
What is the problem you are trying to solve?
You can follow the model most commercial applications on Linux do: put your executable, shared libraries and other resources in one directory (possibly with subdirectories). When linking your executable against those shared libraries pass -Wl,-rpath,'$ORIGIN' (in make use -Wl,-rpath,'$$ORIGIN') to the linker, so that when starting your application the runtime linker looks for required shared libraries in the same directory where executable is.
Then archive that directory and give it to your users.
There are programs for MS Windows that can do so, eg DLL to Lib and DLL to Static Lib.
In the open source world, there isn't really much of an incentive to develop such a tool as you can always recompile from source (but of course it's possible that someone somewhere did it anyway).
It's because dynamic libraries and static libraries are two different things. A static library is just an archive of object files (much like a zip archive). A dynamic library is more like an executable program.
So you can't really link anything into a static library, you can only add more object files.
I am creating a shared object library which will be LD_PRELOADed with my program. In that shared library, I also want to use some variables from my program. What is the way of declaring such variables. Note that shared object library is compiled separately from my program.
Yes. You must link your program with --export-dynamic to make the symbol table of the program accessible to the libraries opened. If you wish to control exactly which symbols are available and using libtool for linking, you can use parameters like -export-symbols-regex to specify which are available. If the symbols required by the library are not available when the program loads, it will fail with an undefined symbol. Some platforms require slightly different link flags (especially Windows). Consider using libtool to make this easier if you are not already.
fakeroot seems to build some libfakeroot.a (but inside a .lib directory).
But I am not sure, that the static linker can indeed replace/rename symbols as the dynamic linker can.
Fakeroot uses the dynamic linker in order to do its magic (specifically, LD_PRELOAD). Unfortunately, the dynamic linker is not involved in loading statically linked binaries (which is how the dynamic linker itself is invoked: /lib/ld-linux.so.2 is statically compiled).
As answered above, your only option, as far as I'm aware, is to use fakeroot-ng, which uses a completely different mechanism to inject into the process, and is, thus, able to work on statically linked libraries without a problem.
In fact, statically linked libraries was part of the reason I set out to write fakeroot-ng in the first place. At the time, there was no way to tell ldconfig to run on a subtree, and ldconfig is statically linked.
Shachar
seems the solution is to use fakeroot-ng, which works for statically linked binaries.