linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] check-uapi: Introduce check-uapi.sh

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, 13 Apr 2023 16:37:14 +0200
From:   Mark Wielaard <mark@...mp.org>
To:     John Moon <quic_johmoo@...cinc.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
        Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        Nicolas Schier <nicolas@...sle.eu>,
        linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
        Todd Kjos <tkjos@...gle.com>,
        Matthias Maennich <maennich@...gle.com>,
        Giuliano Procida <gprocida@...gle.com>,
        kernel-team@...roid.com, libabigail@...rceware.org,
        Jordan Crouse <jorcrous@...zon.com>,
        Trilok Soni <quic_tsoni@...cinc.com>,
        Satya Durga Srinivasu Prabhala <quic_satyap@...cinc.com>,
        Elliot Berman <quic_eberman@...cinc.com>,
        Guru Das Srinagesh <quic_gurus@...cinc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] check-uapi: Introduce check-uapi.sh

Hi,

On Wed, 2023-04-12 at 09:37 -0700, John Moon via Libabigail wrote:
> On 4/11/2023 11:14 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > Would you find the tool more useful if it simply filtered out all instances
> > > where the size of the type did not change? This would filter out the
> > > following which the tool currently flags:
> > > 
> > > - enum expansions
> > > - reserved field expansions
> > > - expansions of a struct with a flex array at the end
> > > - type changes
> > > - re-ordering of existing members
> > > - ...others?
> > 
> > Obviously not, as some of those are real breakages, and some are not at
> > all.
> > 
> > Please understand what is an abi breakage.  Adding new enums is not.
> > Using a reserved field is not.  Reording existing members IS.
> > 
> 
> Yes, understood that method would miss certain classes of breakages. I 
> was suggesting it as a way to improve the signal-to-noise ratio of the 
> tool since we don't currently have an algorithm for determining 
> breakages with 100% accuracy.

Note that you can check the exit code of libabigail's abidiff to see
whether something is an incompatible abi change or not, see:
https://sourceware.org/libabigail/manual/abidiff.html#return-values

You can also of course use suppressions to instruct abidiff to avoid
reporting changes involving certain ABI artifacts:
https://sourceware.org/libabigail/manual/libabigail-concepts.html#suppr-spec-label

Cheers,

Mark