Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Tue, 11 Jul 2023 09:11:53 +0200
From:   Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
To:     Thomas =?iso-8859-1?Q?Wei=DFschuh?= <thomas@t-8ch.de>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Zhangjin Wu <falcon@tinylab.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tools/nolibc: completely remove optional environ support
Message-ID: <ZK0AudpEIDHEdm74@1wt.eu>
References: <20230710-nolibc-environ-v1-1-173831573af6@weissschuh.net>
 <ZKxDP3YrIdKxWaIN@1wt.eu>
 <804671ba-3884-4700-b367-2f84dace89f4@t-8ch.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <804671ba-3884-4700-b367-2f84dace89f4@t-8ch.de>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 07:51:53PM +0200, Thomas Wei?schuh wrote:
> On 2023-07-10 19:43:27+0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > Hi Thomas,
> > 
> > On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 07:22:53PM +0200, Thomas Wei?schuh wrote:
> > > In commit 52e423f5b93e ("tools/nolibc: export environ as a weak symbol on i386")
> > > and friends the asm startup logic was extended to directly populate the
> > > "environ" array.
> > > 
> > > This makes it impossible for "environ" to be dropped by the linker.
> > > Therefore also drop the other logic to handle non-present "environ".
> > 
> > Hmmm OK but at least I'd like that we continue to reference it from
> > nolibc-test to make sure it's still visible. Maybe we could just check
> > that it's always equal to envp ? If we drop its reference from there,
> > sooner or later someone will find it interesting to rename it and some
> > programs referencing it will break.
> 
> Easy enough to test for. I'll send a v2.

Thanks!

> > > Note:
> > > 
> > > Given that nowadays both _auxv and environ are mandatory symbols imposed
> > > by nolibc of pointer size does it make sense to keep the code to make
> > > int-sized errno optional?
> > 
> > While it indeed used to be related to having a data segment or not
> > initially, it still has an impact on our ability to completely drop
> > the errno setting code from all syscalls. Given the SET_ERRNO() macro
> > now I guess it's very cheap to keep it, don't you think ?
> 
> SET_ERRNO irks me a tiny bit :-)

To be honest, it's the same for me. but it's cheap. And when you rebuild
a binary without it you can observe significant savings that can be
important for those who are space-constrained.

> But it's easy enough to keep, let's do so.
> Just wanted to have brought it up.

Yes, you're totally right to raise this, thank you!

Willy