On 11/9/19 10:30 AM, Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Sat, 2019-11-09 at 10:07 -0600, Seebs wrote:
>> On Sat,  9 Nov 2019 15:35:59 +0000
>> Richard Purdie <richard.pur...@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>> Back in 2010[1] we made pseudo statically link against sqlite3.
>>> Since then the world has changed, pseudo now has separate processes
>>> for the database in the server and the client and they have
>>> separate linking commands.
>> I'm not sure what that has to do with the reasons for it being
>> static? Not that I remember exactly anymore, but I think we were
>> hitting problems caused if pseudo was dynamically linked to sqlite,
>> but I don't remember what they were.
> I did talk briefly to Mark (also cc'd) as he wrote the original patch
> and he thought it was possibly because the client was also linking
> against sqlite3 and due to the other things the client does, that was
> problematic.

First (early) version of pseudo would fork for the server, there wasn't a
seperate executed server and we had all sorts of problems with dynamic libraries
being loaded and loaded from the correct paths (due to the LD_PRELOAD).

Moving to two process spaces, LD_PRELOAD and the pseudo executable happened
pretty early in development, but I suspect some of this is left over from that.

>> I'm not entirely sure I know what you mean by "separate processes for
>> the database in the server and the client". I don't think
>> libpseudo.so should ever do any database things at all, and it
>> shouldn't need to link to sqlite.
> I was under the impression the client may once have linked against it.
> I admit I didn't dive into history, just checked that it clearly
> doesn't now.

The client had both from above, but also for some early logging that happened
before the pseudo server was executed.  Both vestiges are long fone.

>>> which occurs if sqlite3-native was built on a machine with glibc
>>> 2.28 or later and pseudo-native is being built on glibc before
>>> that.
>> I don't think pseudo's ever been *expected* to work when built linked
>> against things built against different libc. It is *way* too full of
>> unholy magics that depend on knowing which libc it's using. That
>> said, the pseudo server also shouldn't really need to be statically-
>> linked, the only times it ever runs under pseudo, it just immediately
>> tries to escape and not run that way.
> The client lib doesn't and the server side should behave just like any
> other linux binary afaik so we should be ok with a dynamicly linked
> sqlite3?
>>> There appears to be no easy way to avoid this other than adding a
>>> copy of sqlite3 into the pseudo recipe. Given the static linking
>>> doesn't seem to be required any longer due to the separate
>>> processes,
>>> drop that to fix those issues.
>> I don't understand the "separate processes" thing. So far as I know,
>> pseudo has never talked to sqlite from the client. I think Jason
>> Wessel had experimental patches at one point to do client-local
>> sqlite work to avoid the IPC overhead, but I don't think it ever got
>> merged because it turns out the IPC overhead is insignificant
>> compared to everything else.
> If I'm working off incorrect assumptions, is there another reason we
> need a static sqlite? I have tested this patch before I posted it and
> it seems fine in our test builds...
> Cheers,
> Richard
Openembedded-core mailing list

Reply via email to