Re: PATCH/RFC: ld add -p/-P options

[Matt Rice <ratmice at gmail dot com>]

On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 1:13 PM, Matt Rice<ratmice@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> the glibc ld.so.2 doesn't yet handle these yet afaik, and I don't have
> a solaris machine to test their implementation against.
> so if somebody felt like doing that, it would also be appreciated.
>

ok, so here is the list of questions I have regarding -P/-p i couldn't
glean from suns documentation

a) does it require that the shared library denoted as the argument
even exist, or does it just encode it as a shared library name which
is assumed to exist at runtime?
b) if the library does exist does it use the soname encoded into the audit lib?
c) in the testsuite i had to link to -ptmpdir/audit.so and
-Ptmpdir/audit.so are these basename'd or as is specified on the
command line?
d) does ld do any searching for the audit library in the /lib/secure,
/usr/lib/secure,/lib/secure/64 and /usr/lib/secure/64 directories or
anywhere, or is this only handled at runtime?
e) out of curiosity if 'a' is true does this mean an audit library
could potentially audit itself when also being linked to in a
DT_NEEDED?

anyhow i've tried to make the simple case provided in their docs work
(-plibaudit.so where libaudit.so exists), and i'm not sure how
important it is we hit all these corner cases correctly out of the
starting gate, though a) or some combination of a) and b) would impact
the implementation quite a bit.