I'm asking the solution in c , NOT command line options.
The reason I'm sure it exists is that Apache can be instructed to loaded .so dynamically:
load modules/mod_perl.so
UPDATE
Isn't it too inefficient if I need to search with dlsym one by one?
If you want to load your own modules dynamically, study the dlopen/dlsym family of functions. That's what Apache uses to load its modules. man dlopen has all the information.
If you want to link against shared libraries, you must use linker command line options to specify where these libraries are. Otherwise your program will not be able to execute. No amount of C programming can help a program that won't even start.
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).
I'm building an dynamic library, libfoo.so, which depends on libcrypto.so.
Within my autotools Makefile.am file, I have a line like this:
libfoo_la_LIBADD += -L${OPENSSL_DIR}/lib -lcrypto
where $OPENSSL_DIR defaults to /usr but can be overridden by passing --with-openssl-dir=/whatever.
How can I ensure that an executable using libfoo.so uses ${OPENSSL_DIR}/lib/libcrypto.so (only) without the person building or running the executable having to use rpath or fiddle with LD_LIBRARY_PATH?
As things stand, I can build libfoo and pass --with-openssl-dir=/usr/local/openssl-special and it builds fine. But when I run ldd libfoo.so, it just points to the libcrypto.so in /usr/lib.
The only solution I can think of is statically linking libcrypto.a into libfoo.so. Is there any other approach possible?
Details of runtime dynamic linking vary from platform to platform. The Autotools can insulate you from that to an extent, but if you care about the details, which apparently you do, then it probably is not adequate to allow the Autotools to choose for you.
With that said, however, you seem to be ruling out just about all possibilities:
The most reliable way to ensure that at runtime you get the specific implementation you linked against at build time is to link statically. But you say you don't want that.
If you instead use dynamic libraries then you rely on the dynamic linker to associate a library implementation with your executable at run time. In that case, there are two general choices for how you can direct the DL to a specific library implementation:
Via information stored in the program / library binary. You are using terminology that suggests an ELF-based system, and for ELF shared objects, it is the RPATH and / or RUNPATH that convey information about where to look for required libraries. There is no path information associated with individual library requirements; they are identified by SONAME only. But you say you don't want to use RPATH*, and so I suppose not RUNPATH either.
Via static or dynamic configuration of the dynamic linker. This is where LD_LIBRARY_PATH comes in, but you say you don't want to use that. The dynamic linker typically also has a configuration file or files, such as /etc/ld.so.conf. There you can specify library directories to search, and, with a bit of care, the order to search them.
Possibly, then, you can cause your desired library implementation to be linked to your application by updating the dynamic linker's configuration files to cause it to search the wanted path first. This will affect the whole system, however, and it's brittle.
Alternatively, depending on details of the nature of the dependency, you could give your wanted version of libcrypto a distinct SONAME. Effectively, that would make it a different object (e.g. libdjcrypto) as far as the static and dynamic linkers are concerned. But that is risky, because if your library has both direct and indirect dependencies on libcrypto, or if a program using your library depends on libcrypto via another path, then you'll end up at run time (dynamically) linking both libraries, and possibly even using functions from both, depending on the origin of each call.
Note well that the above issue should be a concern for you if you link your library statically, too. If that leaves any indirect dynamic dependencies on libcrypto in your library, or any dynamic dependencies from other sources in programs using your library, then you will end up with multiple versions of libcrypto in use at the same time.
Bottom line
For an executable, the best options are either (1) all-static linkage or (2) (for ELF) RPATH / LD_LIBRARY_PATH / RUNPATH, ensuring that all components require the target library via the same SONAME. I tend to like providing a wrapper script that sets LD_LIBRARY_PATH, so that its effect is narrowly scoped.
For a reusable library, "don't do that" is probably the best alternative. The high potential for ending up with programs simultaneously using two different versions of the other library (libcrypto in your case) makes all available options unattractive. Unless, of course, you're ok with multiple library versions being used by the same program, in which case static linkage and RPATH / RUNPATH (but not LD_LIBRARY_PATH) are your best available alternatives.
*Note that at least some versions of libtool have a habit of adding RPATH entries whether you ask for them or not -- something to watch out for. You may need to patch the libtool scripts installed in your project to avoid that.
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.
Recently I tried to write a simple compiler on the linux platform by myself.
When it comes to the backend of the compiler, I decided to generate ELF-formatted binaries without using a third-party library, such as libelf.
Instead I want to try to write machine code directly into the file coresponding to the ELF ABI just by using the write() function and controlling all details of the ELF file.
The advantage of this approach is that I can control everything for my compiler.
But I am hesitating. Is that way feasible, considering how detailed the ELF ABI is?
I hope for any suggestions and pointers to good available resources available.
How easy/feasible this is depends on what features you want to support. If you want to use dynamic linking, you have to deal with the symbol table, relocations, etc. And of course if you want to be able to link with existing libraries, even static ones, you'll have to support whatever they need. But if your goal is just to make standalone static ELF binaries, it's really very easy. All you need is a main ELF header (100% boilerplate) and 2 PT_LOAD program headers: one to load your program's code segment, the other to load its data segment. In theory they could be combined, but security-hardened kernels do not allow a given page to be both writable and executable, so it would be smart to separate them.
Some suggested reading:
http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/1059