Feedback-ID: i0fe9450f:Fastmail
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2025 12:16:49 +0900
From: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
To: torsten.rupp@gmx.net, pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: BUG #19095: Test if function exit() is used fail when linked
 static
Message-ID: <aQA1obboZFjqjaBI@paquier.xyz>
References: <19095-6d8256d0c37d4be2@postgresql.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="uF8QZuLyvmwf+NvV"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <19095-6d8256d0c37d4be2@postgresql.org>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/aQA1obboZFjqjaBI%40paquier.xyz>
Precedence: bulk


--uF8QZuLyvmwf+NvV
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Oct 27, 2025 at 07:56:38AM +0000, PG Bug reporting form wrote:
> This test fail if libpq is linked static to an application when e. g.
> libcrypto is also linked static into libpq which add indirectly a call to
> "pthread_exit()".
>=20
> Possible fix: exclude pthread_exit(), too (like __cxa_atexit), e.g.:

Previous discussions around this check:
- 936f56988741, with:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAEhC_BmNGKgj2wKArH2EAU11BsaHYgLnrRFJ=
GRm5Vs8WJzyiQA@mail.gmail.com
- dc227eb82ea8, with:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/3128896.1624742969@sss.pgh.pa.us

We have usually used the buildfarm to decide how much restriction we
should put into this one, for good historical reasons because we
should never exit() directly from libpq, like this one:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20210703001639.GB2374652@rfd.leadboat=
=2Ecom

Treating pthread_exit() as an exception sounds like it may be a good
thing anyway: we don't rely on it in the code core.

Now I am not completely sure how much we should care about considering
that any of that as something we need to tweak in the core code.  The
use of static libraries are usually discouraged, because it makes the
handling of package dependencies more complicated if some
sub-libraries need to be upgraded following a CVE-class issue, and
here you are pointing at what looks like a custom static library build
of libcrypto on Linux.

Opinions from others are welcome, mine counts like -0.5.
--
Michael

--uF8QZuLyvmwf+NvV
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=W+hv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--uF8QZuLyvmwf+NvV--