Re: Linking libpq statically to libssl

From: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Daniele Varrazzo <daniele(dot)varrazzo(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Linking libpq statically to libssl
Date: 2017-11-02 23:52:35
Message-ID: 20171102235234.GQ4628@tamriel.snowman.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Peter,

* Peter Eisentraut (peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com) wrote:
> On 10/27/17 08:24, Daniele Varrazzo wrote:
> > I have a problem building binary packages for psycopg2. Binary
> > packages ship with their own copies of libpq and libssl;
>
> Aside from the advice of "don't do that" ...
>
> > however if
> > another python package links to libssl the library will be imported
> > twice with conflicting symbols, likely resulting in a segfault (see
> > https://github.com/psycopg/psycopg2/issues/543). This happens e.g. if
> > a python script both connects to postgres and opens an https resource.
>
> ... the standard solutions to this problem are symbol versioning and
> linker flags to avoid making all symbols globally available. libpq has
> symbol versioning. Maybe the libssl you are using does not. Also, for
> example, if you dlopen() with RTLD_LOCAL, the symbols will not be
> globally available, so there should be no conflicts.

Uh, libpq doesn't actually have symbol versioning, at least not on the
installed Ubuntu packages for PG10, as shown by objdump -T :

0000000000011d70 g DF .text 0000000000000054 Base PQconnectStart

and we've certainly not spent effort that I've seen to try to actually
make libpq work when multiple versions of libpq are linked into the same
running backend.

I addressed that in my comments also and I don't believe you could
guarantee that things would operate correctly even with symbol
versioning being used. Perhaps if you versioned your symbols with
something wildly different from what's on the system and hope that
what's on the system never ends up with that version then maybe it'd
work, but that's quite far from the intended use-case of symbol
versioning.

> This needs cooperation from various different parties, and the details
> will likely be platform dependent. But it's generally a solved problem.

Right, it's solved when there's one source of truth for the library
which is being maintained consistently and carefully. That allows
multiple versions of libraries to be installed concurrently and linked
into a running process at the same time, because the group maintaining
those different versions of the library make sure that the symbols are
versioned with appropriate versions and they make sure to not break ABI
for those symbols unless they are also changing the version and putting
out a new version.

This was all solved with GLIBC a very long time ago, but it's a heck of
a lot of work to get it right and correct, and that's when you've got a
bunch of people who work on libraries all the time and carefully control
all of the versions which are installed on the OS in coordination.
Trying to do so when you can't control what's happing with the other
library strikes me as highly likely to result in a whole lot of
difficulties.

Thanks!

Stephen

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thomas Munro 2017-11-03 01:05:24 Re: Parallel Hash take II
Previous Message Fabrízio de Royes Mello 2017-11-02 23:36:45 Re: [PATCH] A hook for session start