JavaScript is required to for searching.
Skip Navigation Links
Exit Print View
Oracle Solaris 11.1 Linkers and Libraries Guide     Oracle Solaris 11.1 Information Library
search filter icon
search icon

Document Information


Part I Using the Link-Editor and Runtime Linker

1.  Introduction to the Oracle Solaris Link Editors

2.  Link-Editor

3.  Runtime Linker

4.  Shared Objects

Part II Quick Reference

5.  Link-Editor Quick Reference

Part III Advanced Topics

6.  Direct Bindings

Observing Symbol Bindings

Enabling Direct Binding

Using the -B direct Option

Using the -z direct Option

Using the DIRECT mapfile Keyword

Direct Bindings and Interposition

Localizing Symbol Instances

Removing Multiply Defined Symbols of the Same Name

Defining Explicit Interposition

Preventing a Symbol from being Directly Bound to

Using the -B nodirect Option

Using the NODIRECT mapfile Keyword

7.  Building Objects to Optimize System Performance

8.  Mapfiles

9.  Interfaces and Versioning

10.  Establishing Dependencies with Dynamic String Tokens

11.  Extensibility Mechanisms

Part IV ELF Application Binary Interface

12.  Object File Format

13.  Program Loading and Dynamic Linking

14.  Thread-Local Storage

Part V Appendices

A.  Linker and Libraries Updates and New Features

B.  System V Release 4 (Version 1) Mapfiles


Direct Bindings and Interposition

Interposition can occur when multiple instances of a symbol, having the same name, exist in different dynamic objects that have been loaded into a process. Under the default search model, symbol references are bound to the first definition that is found in the series of dependencies that have been loaded. This first symbol is said to interpose on the other symbols of the same name.

Direct bindings can circumvent any implicit interposition. As the directly bound reference is searched for in the dependency associated with the reference, the default symbol search model that enables interposition, is bypassed. In a directly bound environment, bindings can be established to different definitions of a symbol that have the same name.

The ability to bind to different definitions of a symbol that have the same name is a feature of direct binding that can be very useful. However, should an application depend upon an instance of interposition, the use of direct bindings can subvert the applications expected execution. Before deciding to use direct bindings with an existing application, the application should be analyzed to determine whether interposition exists.

To determine whether interposition is possible within an application, use lari(1). By default, lari conveys interesting information. This information originates from multiple instances of a symbol definition, which in turn can lead to interposition.

Interposition only occurs when one instance of the symbol is bound to. Multiple instances of a symbol that are called out by lari might not be involved in interposition. Other multiple instance symbols can exist, but might not be referenced. These unreferenced symbols are still candidates for interposition, as future code development might result in references to these symbols. All instances of multiply defined symbols should be analyzed when considering the use of direct bindings.

If multiple instances of a symbol of the same name exist, especially if interposition is observed, one of the following actions should be performed.

The following sections explore these actions in greater detail.

Localizing Symbol Instances

Multiply defined symbols of the same name that provide different implementations, should be isolated to avoid accidental interposition. The simplest way to remove a symbol from the interfaces that are exported by an object, is to reduce the symbol to local. Demoting a symbol to local can be achieved by defining the symbol “static”, or possibly through the use of symbol attributes provided by the compilers.

A symbol can also be reduced to local by using the link-editor and a mapfile. The following example shows a mapfile that reduces the global function error() to a local symbol by using the local scoping directive.

$ cc -o -G -Kpic error.c a.c b.c ...
$ elfdump -sN.symtab | fgrep error
    [36]  0x000002d0 0x00000014  FUNC GLOB  D    0 .text      error
$ cat mapfile
$mapfile_version 2
$ cc -o -G -Kpic -M mapfile error.c a.c b.c ...
$ elfdump -sN.symtab | fgrep error
    [24]  0x000002c8 0x00000014  FUNC LOCL  H    0 .text      error

Although individual symbols can be reduced to locals using explicit mapfile definitions, defining the entire interface family through symbol versioning is recommended. See Chapter 9, Interfaces and Versioning.

Versioning is a useful technique typically employed to identify the interfaces that are exported from shared objects. Similarly, dynamic executables can be versioned to define their exported interfaces. A dynamic executable need only export the interfaces that must be made available for the dependencies of the object to bind to. Frequently, the code that you add to a dynamic executable need export no interfaces.

The removal of exported interfaces from a dynamic executable should take into account any symbol definitions that have been established by the compiler drivers. These definitions originate from auxiliary files that the compiler drivers add to the final link-edit. See Using a Compiler Driver.

The following example mapfile exports a common set of symbol definitions that a compiler driver might establish, while demoting all other global definitions to local.

$ cat mapfile
$mapfile_version 2

You should determine the symbol definitions that your compiler driver establishes. Any of these definitions that are used within the dynamic executable should remain global.

By removing any exported interfaces from a dynamic executable, the executable is protected from future interposition issues than might occur as the objects dependencies evolve.

Removing Multiply Defined Symbols of the Same Name

Multiply defined symbols of the same name can be problematic within a directly bound environment, if the implementation associated with the symbol maintains state. Data symbols are the typical offenders in this regard, however functions that maintain state can also be problematic.

In a directly bound environment, multiple instances of the same symbol can be bound to. Therefore, different binding instances can manipulate different state variables that were originally intended to be a single instance within a process.

For example, suppose that two shared objects contain the same data item errval. Suppose also, that two functions action() and inspect(), exist in different shared objects. These functions expect to write and read the value errval respectively.

With the default search model, one definition of errval would interpose on the other definition. Both functions action() and inspect() would be bound to the same instance of errval. Therefore, if an error code was written to errval by action(), then inspect() could read, and act upon this error condition.

However, suppose the objects containing action() and inspect() were bound to different dependencies that each defined errval. Within a directly bound environment, these functions are bound to different definitions of errval. An error code can be written to one instance of errval by action() while inspect() reads the other, uninitialized definition of errval. The outcome is that inspect() detects no error condition to act upon.

Multiple instances of data symbols typically occur when the symbols are declared in headers.

int bar;

This data declaration results in a data item being produced by each compilation unit that includes the header. The resulting tentative data item can result in multiple instances of the symbol being defined in different dynamic objects.

However, by explicitly defining the data item as external, references to the data item are produced for each compilation unit that includes the header.

extern int bar;

These references can then be resolved to one data instance at runtime.

Occasionally, the interface for a symbol implementation that you want to remove, should be preserved. Multiple instances of the same interface can be vectored to one implementation, while preserving any existing interface. This model can be achieved by creating individual symbol filters by using a FILTER mapfile keyword. This keyword is described in SYMBOL_SCOPE / SYMBOL_VERSION Directives.

Creating individual symbol filters is useful when dependencies expect to find a symbol in an object where the implementation for that symbol has been removed.

For example, suppose the function error() exists in two shared objects, and To remove the symbol duplication, you want to remove the implementation from However, other dependencies are relying on error() being provided from The following example shows the definition of error() in A mapfile is then used to allow the removal of the error() implementation, while leaving a filter for this symbol that is directed to

$ cc -o -G -Kpic error.c a.c b.c ...
$ elfdump -sN.dynsym | fgrep error
    [3]  0x00000300 0x00000014  FUNC GLOB  D    0 .text      error
$ cat mapfile
$mapfile_version 2
                error { TYPE=FUNCTION; };
$ cc -o -G -Kpic -M mapfile a.c b.c ...
$ elfdump -sN.dynsym | fgrep error
    [3]  0x00000000 0x00000000  FUNC GLOB  D    0 ABS        error
$ elfdump -y | fgrep error
    [3]  F       [0]         error

The function error() is global, and remains an exported interface of However, any runtime binding to this symbol is vectored to the filtee The letter “F” indicates the filter nature of this symbol.

This model of preserving existing interfaces, while vectoring to one implementation has been used in several Oracle Solaris libraries. For example, a number of math interfaces that were once defined in are now vectored to the preferred implementation of the functions in

Defining Explicit Interposition

The default search model can result in instances of the same named symbol interposing on later instances of the same name. Even without any explicit labelling, interposition still occurs, so that one symbol definition is bound to from all references. This implicit interposition occurs as a consequence of the symbol search, not because of any explicit instruction the runtime linker has been given. This implicit interposition can be circumvented by direct bindings.

Although direct bindings work to resolve a symbol reference directly to an associated symbol definition, explicit interposition is processed prior to any direct binding search. Therefore, even within a direct binding environment, interposers can be designed, and be expected to interpose on any direct binding associations. Interposers can be explicitly defined using the following techniques.

The interposition facilities of the LD_PRELOAD environment variable, and the -z interpose option, have been available for some time. See Runtime Interposition. As these objects are explicitly defined to be interposers, the runtime linker inspects these objects before processing any direct binding.

Interposition that is established for a shared object applies to all the interfaces of that dynamic object. This object interposition is established when a object is loaded using the LD_PRELOAD environment variable. Object interposition is also established when an object that has been built with the -z interpose option, is loaded. This object model is important when techniques such as dlsym(3C) with the special handle RTLD_NEXT are used. An interposing object should always have a consistent view of the next object.

A dynamic executable has additional flexibility, in that the executable can define individual interposing symbols using the INTERPOSE mapfile keyword. Because a dynamic executable is the first object loaded in a process, the executables view of the next object is always consistent.

The following example shows an application that explicitly wants to interpose on the exit() function.

$ cat mapfile
$mapfile_version 2
                exit    { FLAGS = INTERPOSE };
$ cc -o prog -M mapfile exit.c a.c b.c ...
$ elfdump -y prog | fgrep exit
    [6]  DI          <self>         exit

The letter “I” indicates the interposing nature of this symbol. Presumably, the implementation of this exit() function directly references the system function _exit(), or calls through to the system function exit() using dlsym() with the RTLD_NEXT handle.

At first, you might consider identifying this object using the -z interpose option. However, this technique is rather heavy weight, because all of the interfaces exported by the application would act as interposers. A better alternative would be to localize all of the symbols provided by the application except for the interposer, together with using the -z interpose option.

However, use of the INTERPOSE mapfile keyword provides greater flexibility. The use of this keyword allows an application to export several interfaces while selecting those interfaces that should act as interposers.

Symbols that are assigned the STV_SINGLETON visibility effectively provide a form of interposition. See Table 12-21. These symbols can be assigned by the compilation system to an implementation that might become multiply instantiated in a number of objects within a process. All references to a singleton symbol are bound to the first occurrence of a singleton symbol within a process.