This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Library auditing interface stability?
- From: Carlos O'Donell <carlos at redhat dot com>
- To: munroesj at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com, tulioqm at br dot ibm dot com
- Cc: Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com>, Ulrich Drepper <drepper at gmail dot com>, GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 11:57:25 -0400
- Subject: Re: Library auditing interface stability?
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <57169D19 dot 2030109 at redhat dot com> <CAOPLpQeV+hGcBZosGgN=8zZ9aycoFVG_BW9r9xDLQ4L0V8o=sA at mail dot gmail dot com> <5721C7C2 dot 1080805 at redhat dot com> <572262D0 dot 6050803 at redhat dot com> <1462460184 dot 9421 dot 3 dot camel at oc7878010663>
On 05/05/2016 10:56 AM, Steven Munroe wrote:
> On Thu, 2016-04-28 at 15:21 -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>> On 04/28/2016 04:20 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>>> On 04/20/2016 04:24 PM, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 5:03 PM, Carlos O'Donell
>>>> <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>>>> In particular the La_*_regs and La_*_retval which contains
>>>>> additional registers as we expand the supported ISAs.
>>>> la_version is there to preserve unlimited backward compatibility.
>>> We have not used this mechanism when we added support for additional
>>> registers to be passed to the PLT callbacks. Looking at commits
>>> 14c5cbabc2d11004ab223ae5eae761ddf83ef99e and
>>> 5cdd1989d1d2f135d02e66250f37ba8e767f9772, there is no way for an
>>> audit module to notice if these additional fields are maintained by
>> I think we should have bumped the la_version number for all changes
>> to the structure for any architecture.
>> Do we fix this by bumping LAV_CURRENT?
>> diff --git a/elf/link.h b/elf/link.h
>> index f448141..cbf94a3 100644
>> --- a/elf/link.h
>> +++ b/elf/link.h
>> @@ -95,8 +95,13 @@ struct link_map
>> #ifdef __USE_GNU
>> -/* Version numbers for la_version handshake interface. */
>> -#define LAV_CURRENT 1
>> +/* Version numbers for la_version handshake interface.
>> + 1 - Initial implementation.
>> + 2 - Added lrv_bnd0 and lrv_bnd1 to La_i86_retval.
>> + 3 - Added lr_v[24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31] to La_s390_64_regs, and
>> + La_s390_32_regs. Added lrv_v24 to La_s390_64_retval and
>> + La_s390_64_retval. */
>> +#define LAV_CURRENT 3
>> /* Activity types signaled through la_activity. */
>> We can't fix audit modules in the field which return 1.
>> We can fix newly compiled audit modules, making them expect
>> a LAV_CURRENT of 3, such that they can't be run with older
>> LAV_CURRENT 1 glibc which doesn't have BIND on x86 or
>> VSX on s390?
> I am not sure if the audit modules need to now or care about PPC VSX or
> TAR, but if memory serves. VSX was added after the audit API.
Is VSX or TAR part of the procedure call sequence?
The La_*_regs structure allows an audit module to modify incoming
registers to the function using the PLT hook being provided by the