This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Glibc stable release process (Glibc 2.26.1)
- From: Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan at linux dot intel dot com>
- Cc: Andreas Schwab <schwab at suse dot de>, Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh at sourceware dot org>, "Gabriel F. T. Gomes" <gabriel at inconstante dot eti dot br>, Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com>, "Andreas K. Huettel" <dilfridge at gentoo dot org>, <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>, Zack Weinberg <zackw at panix dot com>, "Yann E. MORIN" <yann dot morin dot 1998 at free dot fr>, Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho <tuliom at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>, Romain Naour <romain dot naour at gmail dot com>, Paul Eggert <eggert at cs dot ucla dot edu>
- Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2017 13:25:07 +0000
- Subject: Re: Glibc stable release process (Glibc 2.26.1)
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <60f78cac-9cf4-51b1-9ade-21cd09783d96@gmail.com> <CAKCAbMj3ByTofE=WsKV-SXOCWyJYStRKvP3DA9ttiW2hUNZffA@mail.gmail.com> <5c98c67b-52a9-dcff-eda7-0f16b8ab478d@sourceware.org> <2839686.ckfu0BZrXq@porto> <a30cc34e-f71f-8e8a-1b99-1c3c1b798e84@redhat.com> <93d68f19-73a0-d906-ece2-bdc002507ca5@sourceware.org> <20171003111452.57b93728@keller.br.ibm.com> <31ca9f87-52e1-2f87-c471-7a55c2af0db3@sourceware.org> <mvm376z71jf.fsf@suse.de> <ce9c0ae4-f35b-eab2-b1c8-0771a2fd2ab6@linux.intel.com>
On Wed, 4 Oct 2017, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On 10/4/2017 1:36 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> > On Okt 04 2017, Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh@sourceware.org> wrote:
> >
> > > 0. Must not break ABI on that branch
> >
> > We must not break the ABI on any branch. What you probably mean is that
> > we must not extend the ABI on the release branch.
>
> and no new symvers
>
> I'd expect this to be both backward (like usual) but also forward compatible
> as a goal.
>
> now if a CVE requires a new symver, I'm sure that will trump that rule
Even new GLIBC_PRIVATE symbols are risky for package updates on live
systems (as you get the situation where a process had loaded libc.so not
providing the symbol, then glibc is upgraded, then that process loads
a newer libm.so which expects a GLIBC_PRIVATE symbol from libc.so that
only newer libc.so provides - a real issue that appeared with backports of
nan unbounded stack usage fixes).
--
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com