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, 1 Apr 2014 09:28:46 -0400
From:	Josh Boyer <jwboyer@...oraproject.org>
To:	Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>
Cc:	"Linux-Kernel@...r. Kernel. Org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: liblockdep soname versioning

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.

josh
--
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/