Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

glibc>=2.34 (RHEL 9) integration of libpthread, libdl, libutil, libanl into libc #57

Open
mbargull opened this issue Jan 10, 2024 · 0 comments
Labels
question Further information is requested

Comments

@mbargull
Copy link
Member

Comment:

In today's conda-forge/core meeting the question came up whether we'd need any changes regarding libpthreads' (et al.) integration into libc itself for glibc>=2.34 (used in RHEL 9 onward).

In contrast to libcrypt.so.1's removal (in RHEL 9 onward and generally in future glibc>=3.29 releases) for which we do have to make changes (see gh-52), we probably don't here since backwards compatibility is given.
See upstream changelog:
https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=blame;f=NEWS;hb=refs/tags/glibc-2.34#l12 :

  • In order to support smoother in-place-upgrades and to simplify
    the implementation of the runtime all functionality formerly
    implemented in the libraries libpthread, libdl, libutil, libanl has
    been integrated into libc. New applications do not need to link with
    -lpthread, -ldl, -lutil, -lanl anymore. For backwards compatibility,
    empty static archives libpthread.a, libdl.a, libutil.a, libanl.a are
    provided, so that the linker options keep working. Applications which
    have been linked against glibc 2.33 or earlier continue to load the
    corresponding shared objects (which are now empty). The integration
    of those libraries into libc means that additional symbols become
    available by default. This can cause applications that contain weak
    references to take unexpected code paths that would only have been
    used in previous glibc versions when e.g. preloading libpthread.so.0,
    potentially exposing application bugs.

Opening this issue here so we are at least aware of the changes and can track potential adjustments.

@chenghlee, if you have encountered cases for which this change causes issues, do let us know!

@mbargull mbargull added the question Further information is requested label Jan 10, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
question Further information is requested
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant