Comment by mdavid626
13 hours ago
You can "package" all .so files you need into one file, there are many tools which do this (like a zip file).
But you can't take .so files and make one "static" binary out of them.
13 hours ago
You can "package" all .so files you need into one file, there are many tools which do this (like a zip file).
But you can't take .so files and make one "static" binary out of them.
> But you can't take .so files and make one "static" binary out of them.
Yes you can!
This is more-or-less what unexec does
- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21394916
For some reason nobody seems to like this sorcery, probably because it combines the worst of all worlds.
But there's almost[1] nothing special about what the dynamic linker is doing to get those .so files into memory that it can't arrange them in one big file ahead of time!
[1]: ASLR would be one of those things...
What if the library you use calls dlopen later? That’ll fail.
There is no universal, working way to do it. Only some hacks which work in some special cases.
> What if the library you use calls dlopen later? That’ll fail.
Nonsense. xemacs could absolutely call dlopen.
> There is no universal, working way to do it. Only some hacks which work in some special cases.
So you say, but I remember not too long ago you weren't even aware it was possible, and you clearly didn't check one of the most prominent users of this technique, so maybe you should also explain why I or anyone else should give a fuck about what you think is a "hack"?
Well not a static binary in the sense that's commonly meant when speaking about static linking. But you can pack .so files into the executable as binary data and then dlopen the relevant memory ranges.
Yes, that's true.
But I'm always a bit sceptical about such approaches. They are not universal. You still need glibc/musl to be the same on the target system. Also, if you compile againt new glibc version, but try to run on old glibc version, it might not work.
These are just strange and confusing from the end users' perspective.
> But I'm always a bit sceptical about such approaches. They are not universal. You still need glibc/musl to be the same on the target system. Also, if you compile againt new glibc version, but try to run on old glibc version, it might not work.
Why would you include most of your dynamic libraries but not your libc?
You could still run into problems if you (or your libraries) want to use syscalls that weren't available on older kernels or whatever.
3 replies →