netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf v3] libbpf: handle symbol versioning properly for libbpf.a

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]

Message-ID: <b23d1e1f-6912-33eb-e7d7-c1e47015cb4c@fb.com>
Date:   Mon, 30 Sep 2019 16:42:48 +0000
From:   Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>
To:     Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        "bpf@...r.kernel.org" <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
CC:     Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Kernel Team <Kernel-team@...com>,
        Kevin Laatz <kevin.laatz@...el.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf v3] libbpf: handle symbol versioning properly for
 libbpf.a

On 9/30/19 9:29 AM, Yonghong Song wrote:
> +OLD_VERSION(xsk_umem__create_v0_0_2, xsk_umem__create, LIBBPF_0.0.2)
> +NEW_VERSION(xsk_umem__create_v0_0_4, xsk_umem__create, LIBBPF_0.0.4)

how this will look when yet another version of this function is 
introduced, say in 0.0.6 ?

OLD_VERSION(xsk_umem__create_v0_0_2, xsk_umem__create, LIBBPF_0.0.2)
OLD_VERSION(xsk_umem__create_v0_0_4, xsk_umem__create, LIBBPF_0.0.4)
NEW_VERSION(xsk_umem__create_v0_0_6, xsk_umem__create, LIBBPF_0.0.6)

0.0.4 will be renamed to OLD_ and the latest addition NEW_ ?
The macro name feels a bit confusing. May be instead of NEW_
call it CURRENT_ ? or DEFAULT_ ?
NEW_ will become not so 'new' few months from now.