linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 0/2] __vdso

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:	Sun, 15 Jun 2014 11:54:10 -0700
From:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>,
	Mikael Pettersson <mikpelinux@...il.com>,
	Russ Cox <rsc@...ang.org>,
	Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ian Taylor <iant@...ang.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/2] __vdso_findsym

On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 11:39 AM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
> Symbol versioning so we can rev the ABI and still provide backwards compatibility.  Weak symbols so the libc can override symbols if it considers it appropriate.  This is a good thing.

Are we ever going to change, say, the __vdso_clock_gettime ABI without
renaming the function?  If we want to preserve that ability, I can
keep support for versions, but it seems odd.

I don't buy the weak symbol argument at all.  We currently expose a
strong symbol __vdso_clock_gettime and a weak alias clock_gettime.  I
agree that, if glibc treats us as a real DSO, then clock_gettime can't
be strong, but I don't see why it should exist at all (other than for
backwards compatibility).

--Andy
--
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/