2018-01-10 4:22 GMT+01:00 k.suzaki <k.suzaki_AT_aist.go.jp>:
> On 2018/01/09 17:10, k.suzaki wrote:
>
>> On 2018/01/09 15:49, Daniel Cegiełka wrote:
>>>
>>> 2018-01-09 3:22 GMT+01:00 k.suzaki <k.suzaki_AT_aist.go.jp>:
>>>>
>>>> Dear,
>>>>
>>>> I found some dlopen() functions in the stali source code. I guess they
>>>> are obstacle of static linking.
>>>> However, the configure files and .m4 files have the open
>>>> "enable_dlopen=no".
>>>>
>>>> Are all dlopen() functions suppressed when the source files are compiled
>>>> as static linking?
>>>> # If so, it is a good job.
>>>
>>> http://www.openwall.com/lists/musl/2012/12/08/4
>>
>> I read the article "static linking and dlopen". There are many following
>> threads discussing static linking and dlopen.
>> However, I cannot understand the solution for stali.
>>
>> I found the useful thread which describes the dlopen in musl clearly.
>> http://www.openwall.com/lists/musl/2012/12/09/7
>> musl includes a dlopen function.
>> When a binary is statically linked, it is a stub.
>> When a binary is dynamically linked, it loads the shared library
>> requested.
>>
>> Does a static linked binary in stali have a stub?
>> Does the binary is suppressed by "enable_dlopen=no" at configure level?
>> Or both?
I'm not a stali expert, but in my opinion, there is no enable_dlopen
option at configure level. It's more libc case...
https://git.musl-libc.org/cgit/musl/tree/src/ldso/dlopen.c
...so it's stub, when binary is statically linked.
Received on Wed Jan 10 2018 - 14:20:07 CET