dlopen()ing shared libraries considered harmful (was Re: Depends/Recommends from libraries)
- Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2017 05:44:20 +0200
- From: Guillem Jover <guillem@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: dlopen()ing shared libraries considered harmful (was Re: Depends/Recommends from libraries)
On Fri, 2017-03-10 at 10:16:58 +0000, Simon McVittie wrote:
> I do not agree that dlopen()ing dependencies (what you have called "dynamic
> loading") is something we should encourage over normal linking with -lfoo
> (resulting in a DT_NEEDED entry, what you have called "static loading").
Thanks for this write-up! I've had pending in my queue something like
this for a long time, but never found the time. It's still one of my
long-term personal crusades [C]. :)
As I've also noted in the past [B], I'd go even further and say that
we need at least to very strongly discourage, but ideally outright ban
the dlopen()ing of shared libraries that are not part of the same
source package or at least under the control of the same upstream
project, or are shared libraries that define themselves to the ABI
and SONAME level (but those are very few and rare).
> dlopen()ing dependencies in the way that is most commonly implemented,
> with dlopen("libimobiledevice.so.6") and dlsym(handle, "idevice_new")
> or similar, has some practical problems for Debian:
> * The libraries used aren't visible to dpkg-shlibdeps. The maintainer has
> to know what dlopen() calls the code will make, and either hard-code an
> appropriate Depends (or in this case Recommends), or link a dummy
> executable against the same things that are dlopen()ed (as is done
> in packages like wine and openal-soft) and use that for dpkg-shlibdeps.
> Either way, they have to remember to update it for every new upstream
> release. This is the sort of tedious-but-subtle work that we automate
> because otherwise it will inevitably be incorrect after a few releases.
> * The exact symbols used aren't visible to dpkg-shlibdeps. The maintainer
> has to hard-code a version number that has all the required symbols.
> Again, this is the sort of thing that we automate because it will
> inevitably go wrong if done manually.
* Because the shared library SONAME is hard-coded in both code and
packaging metadata, whenever there's a transition with a SOVERSION
bump that could have been handled with a simple mass binNMU, instead
it requires manual intervention to patch those, while making sure it
still works due to the points above.
> The pedantically correct way to have weak library dependencies is this
> multi-level chain of linking, analogous to what is documented for APIs
> that wrap dlopen() such as libltdl and GLib's GModule:
> - eventual API user, e.g. /usr/bin/gnome-software
> - a plugin intended to be dlopen()ed, e.g. libgs_plugin_flatpak-user.so
> has DT_NEEDED on:
> - libflatpak0
I don't think this is pedantical at all, it's IMO the only sane and
correct way to handle this.