Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2019 14:08:13 +0100
To: Florian Weimer <>
Subject: (OT?) Re: Symbol versioning approximation trips on compat

On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 07:34:25AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * u-uy:
> > On Sat, Jan 26, 2019 at 11:04:24PM -0500, Rich Felker wrote:
> >> For what it's worth, compat symbols would have let us remove symbols
> >> that shouldn't have been put in musl, such as lchmod (which confuses
> >> broken apps which wrongly expect that, if it exists, it should work)
> >
> > For what my integrator perspective is worth, exposing brokenness instead
> > of catering for it is a Good Thing.

> So far, no one has presented a compelling way how to test for symbol
> versioning support.

My comment apparently fell out of context. Sorry for that.

It was about applications who make undue assumptions (and as a consequence
use misdirected tests). Exposing the failures of those assumptions is
vital to be able to make it better.

If there is a feature which is hard or impossible to test for, like
symbol versioning, it means that the applications may _have_ to rely on
an explicit build flag telling whether to use it.

IOW it is for the most part not a technical problem but rather a problem
of awareness among application developers.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.