Is it possible to uniquely identify dynamically imported functions by their name? - dynamic-linking

Question

I used
readelf --dyn-sym my_elf_binary | grep FUNC | grep UND
to display the dynamically imported functions of my_elf_binary, from the dynamic symbol table in the .dynsym section to be precise. Example output would be:
[...]
3: 00000000 0 FUNC GLOBAL DEFAULT UND tcsetattr#GLIBC_2.0 (3)
4: 00000000 0 FUNC GLOBAL DEFAULT UND fileno#GLIBC_2.0 (3)
5: 00000000 0 FUNC GLOBAL DEFAULT UND isatty#GLIBC_2.0 (3)
6: 00000000 0 FUNC GLOBAL DEFAULT UND access#GLIBC_2.0 (3)
7: 00000000 0 FUNC GLOBAL DEFAULT UND open64#GLIBC_2.2 (4)
[...]
Is it safe to assume that the names associated to these symbols, e.g. the tcsetattr or access, are always unique? Or is it possible, or reasonable*), to have a dynamic symbol table (filtered for FUNC and UND) which contains two entries with the same associated string?
The reason I am asking is that I am looking for a unique identifier for dynamically imported functions ...
*) Wouldn't the dynamic linker resolve all "UND FUNC symbols" with the same name to the same function anyway?

Answer 1

Yes, given a symbol name and the set of libraries an executable is linked against, you can uniquely identify the function. This behavior is required for linking and dynamic linking to work.
An illustrative example
Consider the following two files:
librarytest1.c:
#include <stdio.h>
int testfunction(void)
{
printf("version 1");
return 0;
}
and librarytest2.c:
#include <stdio.h>
int testfunction(void)
{
printf("version 2");
return 0;
}
Both compiled into shared libraries:
% gcc -fPIC -shared -Wl,-soname,liblibrarytest.so.1 -o liblibrarytest.so.1.0.0 librarytest1.c -lc
% gcc -fPIC -shared -Wl,-soname,liblibrarytest.so.2 -o liblibrarytest.so.2.0.0 librarytest2.c -lc
Note that we cannot put both functions by the same name into a single shared library:
% gcc -fPIC -shared -Wl,-soname,liblibrarytest.so.0 -o liblibrarytest.so.0.0.0 librarytest1.c librarytest2.c -lc
/tmp/cctbsBxm.o: In function `testfunction':
librarytest2.c:(.text+0x0): multiple definition of `testfunction'
/tmp/ccQoaDxD.o:librarytest1.c:(.text+0x0): first defined here
collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
This shows that symbol names are unique within a shared library, but do not have to be among a set of shared libraries.
% readelf --dyn-syms liblibrarytest.so.1.0.0 | grep testfunction
12: 00000000000006d0 28 FUNC GLOBAL DEFAULT 10 testfunction
% readelf --dyn-syms liblibrarytest.so.2.0.0 | grep testfunction
12: 00000000000006d0 28 FUNC GLOBAL DEFAULT 10 testfunction
Now lets link our shared libraries with an executable. Consider linktest.c:
int testfunction(void);
int main()
{
testfunction();
return 0;
}
We can compile and link this against either shared library:
% gcc -o linktest1 liblibrarytest.so.1.0.0 linktest.c
% gcc -o linktest2 liblibrarytest.so.2.0.0 linktest.c
And run each of them (note I'm setting the dynamic library path so the dynamic linker can find the libraries, which are not in a standard library path):
% LD_LIBRARY_PATH=. ./linktest1
version 1%
% LD_LIBRARY_PATH=. ./linktest2
version 2%
Now lets link our executable to both libraries. Each is exporting the same symbol testfunction and each library has a different implementation of that function.
% gcc -o linktest0-1 liblibrarytest.so.1.0.0 liblibrarytest.so.2.0.0 linktest.c
% gcc -o linktest0-2 liblibrarytest.so.2.0.0 liblibrarytest.so.1.0.0 linktest.c
The only difference is the order the libraries are referenced to the compiler.
% LD_LIBRARY_PATH=. ./linktest0-1
version 1%
% LD_LIBRARY_PATH=. ./linktest0-2
version 2%
Here are the corresponding ldd output:
% LD_LIBRARY_PATH=. ldd ./linktest0-1
linux-vdso.so.1 (0x00007ffe193de000)
liblibrarytest.so.1 => ./liblibrarytest.so.1 (0x00002b8bc4b0c000)
liblibrarytest.so.2 => ./liblibrarytest.so.2 (0x00002b8bc4d0e000)
libc.so.6 => /lib64/libc.so.6 (0x00002b8bc4f10000)
/lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x00002b8bc48e8000)
% LD_LIBRARY_PATH=. ldd ./linktest0-2
linux-vdso.so.1 (0x00007ffc65df0000)
liblibrarytest.so.2 => ./liblibrarytest.so.2 (0x00002b46055c8000)
liblibrarytest.so.1 => ./liblibrarytest.so.1 (0x00002b46057ca000)
libc.so.6 => /lib64/libc.so.6 (0x00002b46059cc000)
/lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x00002b46053a4000)
Here we can see that while symbols are not unique, the way the linker resolves them is defined (it appears that it always resolves the first symbol it encounters). Note that this is a bit of a pathological case as you normally wouldn't do this. In the cases where you would go this direction there are better ways of handling symbol naming so they would be unique when exported (symbol versioning, etc)
In summary, yes, you can uniquely identify the function given its name. If there happens to be multiple symbols by that name, you identify the proper one using the order the libraries are resolved in (from ldd or objdump, etc). Yes, in this case you need a bit more information that just its name, but it is possible if you have the executable to inspect.

Answer 2

Note that in your case, the name of the first function import is not just tcsetattr but tcsetattr#GLIBC_2.0. The # is how the readelf program displays a versioned symbol import.
GLIBC_2.0 is a version tag that glibc uses to stay binary compatible with old binaries in the (unusual but possible) case that the binary interface to one of its functions needs to change. The original .o file produced by the compiler will just import tcsetattr with no version information but during static linking, the linker has noticed that the actual symbol exported by lic.so carries a GLIBC_2.0 tag, and so it creates a binary that insists on importing the particular tcsetattr symbol that has version GLIBC_2.0.
In the future there might be a libc.so that exports one tcsetattr#GLIBC_2.0 and a different tcsetattr#GLIBC_2.42, and the version tag will then be used to find which one a partcular ELF object refers to.
It is possible that the same process may also use tcsetattr#GLIBC_2.42 at the same time, such as if it uses another dynamic library which was linked against a libc.so new enough to provide it. The version tags ensure that both the old binary and the new library get the function they expect from the C library.
Most libraries don't use this mechanism and instead just rename the entire library if they need to make breaking changes to their binary interfaces. For example, if you dump /usr/bin/pngtopnm you'll find that the symbols it imports from libnetpbm and libpng are not versioned. (Or at least that's what I see on my machine).
The cost of this is that you can't have a binary that links against one version of libpng and also links against another library that itself links against a different libpng version; the exported names from the two libpng's would clash.
In most cases this is manageable enough through careful packaging practice that maintaining the library source to produce useful version tags and stay backwards compatible is not worth the trouble.
But in the particular case of the C library and a few other vital system libraries, changing the name of the library would be so extremely painful that it makes sense for the maintainers to jump through some hoops in order to ensure it will never need to happen again.

Answer 3

Although in most cases every symbol is unique, there are a handful of exceptions. My favorite is multiple identical symbol import used by PAM (pluggable authentication modules) and NSS (Name Service Switch). In both cases all modules written for either interface use a standard interface with standard names. A common and frequently used example is what happens when you call get host by name. The nss library will call the same function in multiple libraries to get an answer. A common configuration calles the same function in three libraries! I have seen the same function called in five different libraries from one function call, and that was not the limit just what was useful. There is special calls to the dynamic linker need to do this and I have not familiarised myself with the mechanics of doing this, but there is nothing special about the linking of the library module that is so loaded.