This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: 2.25 freeze status
- From: Carlos O'Donell <carlos at redhat dot com>
- To: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
- Cc: "libc-alpha at sourceware dot org" <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>, Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com>, Phil Blundell <pb at pbcl dot net>, Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh at gotplt dot org>
- Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2017 08:02:02 -0500
- Subject: Re: 2.25 freeze status
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <c4cfc6e1-ff9f-c8b3-4a56-38f8d484aa05@gotplt.org> <eff6f641-5448-125d-33b0-39ce66c9f8b2@redhat.com> <1485771929.506.15.camel@pbcl.net> <c7862c02-4976-4cc6-a7fa-8ab93b00cfe2@redhat.com> <22163768-023c-1ed5-b258-6e6d14f45e01@redhat.com> <CAMe9rOovpWzNv7TQ3Emj+Ns8hoD9gf8jKNHnStCZfsM=gzrXdw@mail.gmail.com> <eba4d0d3-ead2-c166-af3a-51d3450529d6@redhat.com> <CAMe9rOo7c_G3Gc1jxX_5gUnncQKa4dK1LU4gddGXypCVA+F9MQ@mail.gmail.com> <e76eec7d-d357-bc3c-fcbb-c32abb6b401f@redhat.com> <CAMe9rOrfWP1oDhZ5uRx226jbJsXuXp7qD2844t5da3ub57r=vA@mail.gmail.com> <ea6efe90-2b68-5eef-72f0-0d9a668a3616@redhat.com> <CAMe9rOoYDKNuqLPuJs4ssPbaoU2FKirERvNopJKp9eT-p7_=Yg@mail.gmail.com> <CAMe9rOpHJxopCOUyw22VEZjPvv61Wr+0s02voAa3zf_aSW8oog@mail.gmail.com> <87a50e42-3e86-3f4a-d470-46393e2af199@redhat.com> <CAMe9rOotk606nxvkvYcrF4hkhFTqgaS=Et0kAWkPsK+DiHCWcA@mail.gmail.com> <7c124a2b-a82d-4761-7018-d1a488bc1033@redhat.com> <CAMe9rOrioqW4UmzJzi_3qGG0toKka4zC6jazSbNeEDzcOXu-7w@mail.gmail.com>
On 02/01/2017 12:04 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 12:45 PM, Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com> wrote:
>> Solutions:
>>
>> (a) Revert the changes to libpthread which introduced the longjmp IFUNC.
>>
>> (b) Revert the fix for bug 20019 which stops the affected applications from
>> starting.
>
> It just silently ignores the potential crash when longjmp is called. I won't
> call it a solution.
>> (c) Implement IFUNC relocation ordering such that the applications work
>> correctly in the presence of the libpthread longjmp IFUNC.
>>
>> Florian Weimer has stated that (c) is not ready for glibc 2.25 release which
>> is tomorrow.
>
> d)
>
> Remove IFUNC from libpthread.so. The requirement for that the symbol
> definition at run-time must come from the same shared object at link-time
> is questionable.
Which of (b) or (d) do you interpret to be less risk given the upcoming release?
Keeping in mind the success criteria defined earlier for this consensus discussion:
* Release of glibc 2.25 without the side effect caused by the fix for 20019
which prevents potentially valid applications from starting.
This is a time-boxed release. We can delay a fix. Incremental progress is OK.
--
Cheers,
Carlos.