Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 06:36:52 +0000 (GMT) From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> To: jb@cimlogic.com.au (John Birrell) Cc: tlambert@primenet.com, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: dlopen again Message-ID: <199805140636.XAA22124@usr05.primenet.com> In-Reply-To: <199805140324.NAA22813@cimlogic.com.au> from "John Birrell" at May 14, 98 01:24:38 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
What are the current obstacles to having a dlopen that works in statically linked code? Specifically, it seems very useful within the context of the NIS+, the LDAP, PAM, and the new resolver libraries, to be able to configure .so's, either by name or by mere existance in a subdirectory of libexec, as pluggable service providers in a library. I've been thinking about this for generic versions of the inet(3) functions, as well, with an eye towards ISO and AX.25 support as drop-in modules. It seems to me (and always has) that the hole at the front of an ELF binary, but after page zero, was intended to have ld.so mapped into it by the kernel (and *not* map ld.so in crt0.o). Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199805140636.XAA22124>