Re: [PATCH v2] malloc: Remove malloc hooks (Bug 23328)

[Carlos O'Donell <carlos at redhat dot com>]

On 07/23/2018 02:45 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 07/23/2018 08:27 PM, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>> On 07/23/2018 11:59 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
>>> On Mon, 23 Jul 2018, Florian Weimer wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Should we install libmalloc-extras.so under that name?
>>>> 
>>>> Or should it be libmalloc-extras.so.0 (soname) without a
>>>> libmalloc-extras.so symbolic link, to discourage new
>>>> applications from linking against it, so making it more obvious
>>>> that this is intended for backwards compatibility with old
>>>> applications?
>>> 
>>> I don't think it's something to discourage applications from
>>> linking against.  Among other things, it's for any use of mtrace,
>>> which is useful for both new and old applications as a
>>> light-weight memory checker for uses similar to those in glibc's
>>> own testsuite.
>> 
>> I'm slightly in agreement with Joseph here, the use of
>> libmalloc-extras.so might turn out to be useful mechanism for
>> deploying this kind of code for now and into the future.
> 
> This wasn't obvious from the patch.
> 
> If there is a promise of ABI stability for the library (rather than
> just interposing bits in libc.so.6), we need ABI checking for it, and
> we should add a soname version.  That's currently missing from the
> patch.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

I envision this will always be an interposer.

The core ABI stability will be provided by libc.so.6.

The interposer will provide the functional implementation, such that
the default libc.so.6 implementation is a stub that does nothing.

Does that make sense?

Cheers,
Carlos.