My question is not the same as this question.
I'm working on a project with a standalone binary that has no dynamic/external linkage, and runs in a *nix environment.
I'm attempting to move to a newer toolset to build with, but some of the static libraries that are available with the older toolset aren't available now -- for example, the crt libraries that provided _start aren't provided in this toolset.
I've been digging through the files provided with the vendor's toolset and found some shared objects with the symbols I needed from the crt libraries (eg, _start, _fini, etc) but I'm unsure whether there's a straightforward way to statically link a shared object into a binary, and further have that binary be executable.
Short version: Can a non-shared-object binary be statically linked with a shared object without the result becoming another shared object?
There's a fundamental difference between a shared library and a static library. First off, do search this site for previous discussions, and check out this question too (and the answers therein).
Basically, a static library is just a collection of objects, and the linker resolves the symbol names into fixed addresses -- this is required for static linking. On the other hand, a shared library is much more like an independent executable, which is loaded into memory by the loader and has entry point addresses to which the program jumps. However, relocation tables that static libraries have are generally not preserved when a shared library is being linked, so it's in general not possible to extract linkable object code from inside a linked shared library.
Yeah, I know this is an 6 year-old question. I was told that it was possible to statically link against a shared-object library, but I've also discovered that it is not.
To actually demonstrate that statically linking a shared-object library is not possible with ld (gcc's linker), use the following gcc command:
gcc -o executablename objectname.o -Wl,-Bstatic -l:libnamespec.so
(Of course you'll have to compile objectname.o from sourcename.c, and you should probably make up your own shared-object library as well. If you do, use -Wl,--library-path,. so that ld can find your library in the local directory.)
The actual error you receive is:
/usr/bin/ld: attempted static link of dynamic object `libnamespec.so'
collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
Clearly, attempting to pull the object out of the shared-object library is something about which ld will balk.
There were some suggestions made here, but my interest in this question was merely academic.
Hope that helps.
Related
I'm encountering an issue which has been elaborated in a good article Shared Library Symbol Conflicts (on Linux). The problem is that when the execution and .so have defined the same name functions, if the .so calls this function name, it would call into that one in execution rather than this one in .so itself.
Let's talk about the case in this article. I understand the DoLayer() function in layer.o has an external function dependency of DoThing() when compiling layer.o.
But when compiling the libconflict.so, shouldn't the external function dependency be resolved in-place and just replaced with the address of conflict.o/DoThing() statically?
Why does the layer.o/DoLayer() still use dynamic linking to find DoThing()? Is this a designed behavior?
Is this a designed behavior?
Yes.
At the time of introduction of shared libraries on UNIX, the goal was to pretend that they work just as if the code was in a regular (archive) library.
Suppose you have foo() defined in both libfoo and libbar, and bar() in libbar calls foo().
The design goal was that cc main.c -lfoo -lbar works the same regardless of whether libfoo and libbar are archive or a shared libraries. The only way to achieve this is to have libbar.so use dynamic linking to resolve call from bar() to foo(), despite having a local version of foo().
This design makes it impossible to create a self-contained libbar.so -- its behavior (which functions it ends up calling) depends on what other functions are linked into the process. This is also the opposite of how Windows DLLs work.
Creating self-contained DSOs was not a consideration at the time, since UNIX was effectively open-source.
You can change the rules with special linker flags, such as -Bsymbolic. But the rules get complicated very quickly, and (since that isn't the default) you may encounter bugs in the linker or the runtime loader.
Yes, this is a designed behavior. When you link a program into a binary, all the references to named external (non-static) functions are resolved to point into the symbol table for the binary. Any shared libraries that are linked against are specified as DT_NEEDED entries.
Then, when you run the binary, the dynamic linker loads each required shared library to a suitable address and resolves each symbol to an address. Sometimes this is done lazily, and sometimes it is done once at first startup. If there are multiple symbols with the same name, one of them will be chosen by the linker, and your program will likely crash since you may not end up with the right one.
Note that this is the behavior on Linux, which has all symbols as a flat namespace. Windows resolves symbols differently, using a tree topology, which has both advantages (fewer conflicts) and disadvantages (the inability to allocate memory in one library and free it in another).
The Linux behavior is very important if you want things like LD_PRELOAD to work. This allows you to use debugging tools like Electric Fence and CPU profiling tools like the Google performance tools, or replace a memory allocator at runtime. None of these things would work if symbols were preferentially resolved to their binary or shared library.
The GNU dynamic linker does support symbol versions, however, so that it's possible to load multiple versions of a shared library into the same program. Oftentimes distros like Debian will do this with libraries they expect to change frequently, like OpenSSL. If the program uses liba which uses OpenSSL 1.0 and libb which uses OpenSSL 1.1, then the program should still function in such a case since OpenSSL has versioned symbols, and each library will use the appropriate version of the relevant symbol.
I'm interested how does linux act in situation that pictured.
You can see library "A" is staticaly linked with application. But this application depends on dynamic library B, and it in turn depends on library A.
So, what library A will use dynamic library B? Staticaly linked library A in my application or it will again load additional library A.
It's important in case if these libraries have different versions.
Also you can suggest me some articles about me, cause for me linker is like black box.
Dynamically linked library B libB.so -which should be dynamically linked, when libB.so is built, to libA.so will not see the statically linked libA.a (even worse, it might have duplicate global variables of that library, so that could give you a nightmare).
Actually, libA.a does not exist in the ELF executable of your main program. Only some but not all object files a*.o from libA.a are statically linked inside your executable (those actually needed).
See Levine Linkers and Loaders book, wikipage on dynamic linking and on ELF, and Drepper's paper How To Write Shared Libraries. See also ld.so(8), ldconfig(8), ldd(1), dlopen(3), mmap(2), proc(5) man pages. Use strace, and try once cat /proc/self/maps ...
In short avoid linking both statically and dynamically the same library (even of similar or different versions).
Rule of thumb: always link dynamically, except when you know what you are doing and why...
Only a minimum amount of work is done
at compile time by the linker; it only
records what library routines the
program needs and the index names or
numbers of the routines in the
library. (source)
So it means ld.so won't check all libraries in its database,only those recorded by the application programe itself, that is to say, only those specified by gcc -lxxx.
This contradicts with my previous knowledge that ld.so will check all libraries in its database one by one until found.
Which is the exact case?
I will make a stab at answering this question...
At link time the linker (not ld.so) will make sure that all the symbols the .o files that are being linked together are satisfied by the libraries the program is being linked against. If any of those libraries are dynamic libraries, it will also check the libraries they depend on (no need to include them in the -l list) to make sure that all of the symbols in those libraries are satisfied. And it will do this recursively.
Only the libraries the executable directly depends on via supplied -l parameters at link time will be recorded in the executable. If the libraries themselves declared dependencies, those dependencies will not be recorded in the executable unless those libraries were also specified with -l flags at link time.
Linking happens when you run the linker. For gcc, this usually looks something like gcc a.o b.o c.o -lm -o myprogram. This generally happens at the end of the compilation process. Underneath the covers it generally runs a program called ld. But ld is not at all the same thing as ld.so (which is the runtime loader). Even though they are different entities they are named similarly because they do similar jobs, just at different times.
Loading is the step that happens when you run the program. For dynamic libraries, the loader does a lot of jobs that the linker would do if you were using static libraries.
When the program runs, ld.so (the runtime loader) actually hooks the symbols up on the executable to the definitions in the shared library. If that shared library depends on other shared libraries (a fact that's recorded in the library) it will also load those libraries and hook things up to them as well. If, after all this is done, there are still unresolved symbols, the loader will abort the program.
So, the executable says which dynamic libraries it directly depends upon. Each of those libraries say which dynamic libraries they directly depend upon, and so forth. The loader (ld.so) uses that to decide which libraries to look in for symbols. It will not go searching through random other libraries in a 'database' to find the appropriate symbols. They must be in libraries that are in the dependency chain.
I wish to know how the Shared library works I am asking in terms of Symbol table reference.
Is it like when we include a shared library it exports the Symbol table to process then based on some pointers we execute the respective function.
What is the meaning of Shared library Strip ?
Edit :- I wish to know that how shared library works when it get loaded into the memory.\
When a function lets say Fun() get called from the application which has def in library. then how this linking happen . I hope now its clear.
Programs make calls to a shared library through a Procedure Linkage Table, which is filled in by the dynamic linker/loader ld.so based on the information in the dynamic symbol table and relocation entries. On Linux this data is stored in programs and libraries in the ELF format, which you can inspect using programs like objdump and readelf.
This Linux Journal article has a basic overview. For more detailed information check out Ulrich Drepper's excellent paper How To Write Shared Libraries, and the Solaris Linker and Libraries Guide.
I've got an application that loads .so files as plugins at startup, using dlopen()
The build environment is running on x86 hardware, but the application is being cross compiled for another platform.
It would be great if I could (as part of the automated build process) do a check to make sure that there aren't any unresolved symbols in a combination of the .so files and the application, without having to actually deploy the application.
Before I write a script to test symbols using the output of nm, I'm wondering if anyone knows of a utility that already does this?
edit 1: changed the description slightly - I'm not just trying to test symbols in the .so, but rather in a combination of several .so's and the application itself - ie. after the application loaded all of the .so's whether there would still be unresolved symbols.
As has been suggested in answers (thanks Martin v. Löwis and tgamblin), nm will easily identify missing symbols in a single file but won't easily identify which of those symbols has been resolved in one of the other loaded modules.
Ideally, a cross-nm tool is part of your cross-compiler suite. For example, if you build GNU binutils for cross-compilation, a cross-nm will be provided as well (along with a cross-objdump).
Could you use a recursive version of ldd for this? Someone seems to have written a script that might help. This at least tell you that all the dependency libs could be resolved, if they were specified in the .so correctly in the first place. You can guarantee that all the dependencies are referenced in the .so with linker options, and this plus recursive ldd would guarantee you no unresolved symbols.
Linkers will often have an option to make unresolved symbols in shared libraries an error, and you could use this to avoid having to check at all. For GNU ld you can just pass --no-allow-shlib-undefined and you're guaranteed that if it makes a .so, it won't have unresolved symbols. From the GNU ld docs:
--no-undefined
Report unresolved symbol references from regular object files.
This is done even if the linker is creating a non-symbolic shared
library. The switch --[no-]allow-shlib-undefined controls the
behaviour for reporting unresolved references found in shared
libraries being linked in.
--allow-shlib-undefined
--no-allow-shlib-undefined
Allows (the default) or disallows undefined symbols in shared
libraries. This switch is similar to --no-undefined except
that it determines the behaviour when the undefined symbols are
in a shared library rather than a regular object file. It does
not affect how undefined symbols in regular object files are
handled.
The reason that --allow-shlib-undefined is the default is that the
shared library being specified at link time may not be the
same as the one that is available at load time, so the symbols might
actually be resolvable at load time. Plus there are some systems,
(eg BeOS) where undefined symbols in shared libraries is normal.
(The kernel patches them at load time to select which function is most
appropriate for the current architecture. This is used for example to
dynamically select an appropriate memset function). Apparently it is
also normal for HPPA shared libraries to have undefined symbols.
If you are going to go with a post-link check, I agree with Martin that nm is probably your best bet. I usually just grep for ' U ' in the output to check for unresolved symbols, so I think it would be a pretty simple script to write.
The restrictions in nm turned out to mean that it wasn't possible to use for a comprehensive symbol checker.
In particular, nm would only list exported symbols.
However, readelf will produce a comprehensive list, along with all of the library dependencies.
Using readelf it was possible to build up a script that would:
Create a list of all of the libraries used,
Build up a list of symbols in an executable (or .so)
Build up a list of unresolved symbols - if there are any unresolved symbols at this point, there would have been an error at load time.
This is then repeated until no new libraries are found.
If this is done for the executable and all of the dlopen()ed .so files it will give a good check on unresolved dependencies that would be encountered at run time.