linux-kernel - Re: liblockdep soname versioning

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:	Tue, 01 Apr 2014 09:35:11 -0400
From:	Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>
To:	Josh Boyer <jwboyer@...oraproject.org>
CC:	"Linux-Kernel@...r. Kernel. Org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: liblockdep soname versioning

On 04/01/2014 09:28 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 9:19 AM, Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com> wrote:
>> On 04/01/2014 08:56 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Sasha,
>>>
>>> We've had a request [1] to package up liblockdep in Fedora.  Looking
>>> things over, I noticed the library isn't actually versioned at all and
>>> instead just builds a plain .so file.  That's likely fine during
>>> development of it, but if distros are to ship it for broader use then
>>> it would be a good idea to specify the soname and use a versioned .so.
>>>
>>> The makefile already has LIBLOCKDEP_VERSION defined.  Would it be
>>> possible to use this as the soname and version number?  Then
>>> liblockdep.so could be the normal symlink to the versioned .so
>>> (liblockdep.so.0.0.1 in this case).
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> josh
>>>
>>> [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082763
>>>
>>
>> Sure! I never expected it to live outside the kernel tree as a separate
>> package, but I'm happy to accommodate for that.
>>
>> I think that I'll just match the version number with the kernel version
>> since what mostly matters is what you have in kernel/lockdep.c, so for
>> example, right now we'll have 'liblockdep.so.3.15.0'. Sounds good?
>
> The only concern I would have is that it would require applications
> linking to it to rebuild with every kernel release even if nothing
> else changed.  Maybe nothing changing is going to be rare enough that
> in practice people will need to rebuild anyway.  Either way, it's
> better to be explicit rather than break users silently, so it sounds
> good to me.

I don't think we ever had a kernel version without changes to lockdep :)

Since lockdep isn't an ABI either, no one promises me it'll work the same
way between versions either, so I'm kinda happy about just forcing rebuilds.


Thanks,
Sasha

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/