lists.openwall.net   lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  linux-cve-announce  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Thu, 19 Apr 2018 11:16:35 -0400
From:   "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
To:     Viktor Prutyanov <viktor.prutyanov@...tuozzo.com>
Cc:     linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, Dmitry Monakhov <dmonakhov@...nvz.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/5] dumpe2fs: add JSON output of superblock

On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 12:59:48PM +0300, Viktor Prutyanov wrote:
> This patch adds JSON output of superblock information
> 
> Signed-off-by: Viktor Prutyanov <viktor.prutyanov@...tuozzo.com>
> ---
>  debugfs/Makefile.in |   4 +-
>  lib/e2p/e2p.h       |   6 +
>  lib/e2p/ls.c        | 362 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  lib/e2p/pe.c        |  18 +++
>  lib/e2p/ps.c        |  10 ++
>  misc/Makefile.in    |   8 +-
>  misc/dumpe2fs.c     |   5 +-

This patch is causing some problems when building with shared
libraries because there are now calls from libe2p (which can be built
shared) to libsupport (which is statically linked).

In general it's a bad idea for shared libraries to call a library
which is statically linked.  It doesn't necessarily work on all
operating systems, and it causes problems if the shared library is
dlopen'ed, etc.

I'd like to solve this problem by moving the json functions into
libe2p.  This would imply that the function signatures are fixed (we
don't want to change or delete function signatures in as shared
library since it could break already-linked binaries).  It would also
require that we change the license on your contributed json functions
currently in libsupport from GPL to LGPL.

Is this something you would be OK with?

thanks,

						- Ted

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ