From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EF8A53858C30 for ; Mon, 20 Feb 2023 14:04:43 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org EF8A53858C30 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1676901883; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=983Izkyb6ce+lrKu5um/HWQ4d0KDWGT5zzZEQoQpG5g=; b=HxV3r3B6Vwkqhm9exPkT0XMCD39cTYZI6ERyLh+mfj8vFLfFRn9kv0RSfi29hhDqMhw0RR M7yPoZpai79s5wFocDaFR5xW+82LsxpVEHsk/54UdvqPbB3GF/nuS3cv827zyBSXtlVCGG hVjNorEo6SU8hTUTd52w/r2B/lfCXmA= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mx3-rdu2.redhat.com [66.187.233.73]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-483-HaaCJ36tPvCBaO-8Iav3Og-1; Mon, 20 Feb 2023 09:04:42 -0500 X-MC-Unique: HaaCJ36tPvCBaO-8Iav3Og-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A34851C426B0; Mon, 20 Feb 2023 14:04:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from oldenburg.str.redhat.com (unknown [10.2.16.38]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 15D2E43FBA; Mon, 20 Feb 2023 14:04:40 +0000 (UTC) From: Florian Weimer To: Adhemerval Zanella Netto Cc: Adhemerval Zanella Netto via Libc-alpha , Joan Bruguera Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] elf: Restore ldconfig libc6 implicit soname logic [BZ #30125] References: <20230216020810.3947682-1-joanbrugueram@gmail.com> <20230218215215.3930119-1-joanbrugueram@gmail.com> <87bkloh3q5.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> <70e98b0f-26c4-82ca-50ce-1efd31102988@linaro.org> Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2023 15:04:39 +0100 In-Reply-To: <70e98b0f-26c4-82ca-50ce-1efd31102988@linaro.org> (Adhemerval Zanella Netto's message of "Mon, 20 Feb 2023 10:55:53 -0300") Message-ID: <87wn4cfn60.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.1 on 10.11.54.5 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: * Adhemerval Zanella Netto: > On 20/02/23 10:21, Florian Weimer wrote: >> * Adhemerval Zanella Netto via Libc-alpha: >> >>> On 18/02/23 18:52, Joan Bruguera wrote: >>>> While cleaning up old libc version support, the deprecated libc4 code was >>>> accidentally kept in `implicit_soname`, instead of the libc6 code. >>>> >>>> This causes additional symlinks to be created by `ldconfig` for libraries >>>> without a soname, e.g. a library `libsomething.123.456.789` without a soname >>>> will create a `libsomething.123` -> `libsomething.123.456.789` symlink. >>>> >>>> As the libc6 version of the `implicit_soname` code is a trivial `xstrdup`, >>>> just inline it and remove `implicit_soname` altogether. >>>> >>>> Some further simplification looks possible (e.g. the call to `create_links` >>>> looks like a no-op if `soname == NULL`, other than the verbose printfs), but >>>> logic is kept as-is for now. >>>> >>>> Fixes: BZ #30125 >>>> Fixes: 8ee878592c4a ("Assume only FLAG_ELF_LIBC6 suport") >>>> Signed-off-by: Joan Bruguera >>> >>> LGTM, thanks. >>> >>> Reviewed-by: Adhemerval Zanella >> >> Reviewed-by: Florian Weimer >> >> Are you going to push & backport this to glibc 2.37? > > I already did from 2.34 to 2.37. I think this was about a different regression? commit fd78cfa72ea2bab30fdb4e1e0672b34471426c05 Author: Vitaly Buka Date: Sat Feb 18 12:53:41 2023 -0800 stdlib: Undo post review change to 16adc58e73f3 [BZ #27749] Not this one here. Thanks, Florian