This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: What does LAV_CURRENT mean backwards compatibility of LD_AUDIT interface?
- From: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>
- To: Roland McGrath <roland at hack dot frob dot com>, Ben Woodard <woodard at redhat dot com>
- Cc: GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>, "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2015 12:08:35 -0400
- Subject: Re: What does LAV_CURRENT mean backwards compatibility of LD_AUDIT interface?
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <54EFBC96 dot 7010608 at redhat dot com> <5507BE70 dot 4090800 at redhat dot com> <20150318215629 dot 2BA1D2C3B30 at topped-with-meat dot com> <550A1A30 dot 2020500 at redhat dot com> <20150319192738 dot D24212C3B11 at topped-with-meat dot com> <30A52510-F5CC-47EE-8E59-8843E7794102 at redhat dot com> <20150319210017 dot 1AF7D2C3B38 at topped-with-meat dot com>
On 03/19/2015 05:00 PM, Roland McGrath wrote:
> That wording says to me that no actual binary compatibility between
> versions of the interface is required beyond the la_version interface being
> there in every version. Once la_version has returned, rtld knows what
> version of the interface that module supports and so the set of other
> symbols it looks up and the ABI for each can depend on that. A newer rtld
> is obliged to keep supporting older versions of the interface when such a
> version number is returned by a module's la_version. But that in no way
> means that a new version must be a superset of its predecessor or anything
> like that. Am I missing something?
No, I think you're on point with that suggestion.
I had simply not envisaged that as a possible model.
In which case we need to, as Ben suggests, adjust our documentation and
that in the Linux kernel man pages to make this clear.
Cheers,
Carlos.