Re: Bug#1063329: libselinux1t64: breaks system in upgrade from unstable
Hi Guillem,
On Wed, Feb 07, 2024 at 04:32:45AM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> Yes, I'm not sure I understand either. This is what symbol versioning
> makes possible, even providing different variants for the same symbol,
> see for example glibc or libbsd.
I think symbol versioning is subtly different and glibc does not use
symbol versioning for e.g. gettimeofday selection. With symbol
versioning, you select a default version at release time and stick to
it. In other words, building against the updated libselinux does not
allow you to use the older 32bit variant of the symbol even if you opt
out of lfs and time64 and you always get the 64bit symbol. What glibc
does is a little more fancy than my simplistic #define in that it uses
asm("name") instead. Still this approach allows for selecting which
symbol is being used via macros (e.g. _FILE_OFFSET_BITS). Please correct
me if I am misrepresenting this as my experience with symbol versioning
is fairly limited.
> In any case, if going the bi-ABI path, I think upstream should get
> involved, and the shape of this decided with them. In addition
> the library should also be built with LFS by the upstream build
> system, which it does not currently, to control its ABI.
I agree that involving upstream is a good idea and my understanding is
that someone from Canonical is doing that already, which is why the
schedule was delayed.
My real question here though is what's the downsides of providing two
variants of this symbol (whether with symbol versioning or name
redirection). From my pov, this effectively is your option 3 and what I
sketched is the most stupid implementation of it. My sketch did assume
that libselinux would be built with LFS support everywhere including
i386. Enabling that on the upstream side definitely is even better,
because it gets us to not have a Debian-specific ABI.
> I think there are only three ways to go about this, excluding the t64
> attempt:
Thanks for confirming that I've reported a real problem.
> If you'd like assistance with trying to get a proposal for 3 to
> present upstream I could look into that. But I think they should be
> involved early on to see what they'd like to see and what they might
> outright reject.
>From my naive point of view, this option 3 is the clear winner. Though
it all depends on what upstream says. If upstream cooperates on any
option, that's better still as we avoid ABI deviation.
Going from here, I also looked a bit into whether we could additionally
use an upstream-cooperating approach for other packages central to
Debian to avoid t64 bumps.
pam seems difficult:
| extern time_t pam_misc_conv_warn_time; /* time that we should warn user */
| extern time_t pam_misc_conv_die_time; /* cut-off time for input */
We cannot symbol-version these in a reasonable way. All we could do is
ask upstream for a real soname bump. We have a slight advantage here: On
little endian (such as armhf), we can extend this to 64bit and 32bit
accesses will continue to work for small values. However, doing this to
m68k would break horribly. I also couldn't find any in-Debian users of
these symbols (super merely vendors pam source), so just bumping it and
accepting breakage (Guillems option 1) might be worth a go?
For libaudit1, I fail to understand why we bump it at all. Both reports
look fine to me:
https://adrien.dcln.fr/misc/armhf-time_t/2024-02-01T09:53:00/compat_reports/libaudit-dev/base_to_lfs/compat_report.html
https://adrien.dcln.fr/misc/armhf-time_t/2024-02-01T09:53:00/compat_reports/libaudit-dev/lfs_to_time_t/compat_report.html
This does not extend to libauparse0 where the report gives a reason, but
libaudit1 is the one that interacts with /usr-move and libauparse0 not,
so can we skip the dance for libaudit1?
For libtirpc, it is only about rpcb_gettime, which returns time via a
time_t* and can indicate success/failure via return. It seems fairly
simple to implement ABI duality here and libtirpc already does symbol
versioning. Maybe we can also approach upstream about this?
For libfuse2, I think the ABI analysis is broken. The base-to-lfs report
supposedly is ok
https://adrien.dcln.fr/misc/armhf-time_t/2024-02-01T09:53:00/compat_reports/libfuse-dev/base_to_lfs/compat_report.html
and then going lfs-to-time changes ino_t
https://adrien.dcln.fr/misc/armhf-time_t/2024-02-01T09:53:00/compat_reports/libfuse-dev/lfs_to_time_t/compat_report.html
while I would have expected ino_t to change with lfs already. Are we
sure about this? In any case, this is more of an academic question as
adding ABI-duality would be more involved here. Moreover, I don't see
any ACC report for libfuse3-dev. Did that fail to analyze?
libiw30 only has one affected symbol:
iw_print_timeval ( char* buffer, int buflen, struct timeval const* time, struct timezone const* tz )
Providing ABI duality for this seems doable. Moreover, libiw30 already
has soname 30, so maybe upstream is open to bumping it again? The
resulting library transition is fairly small.
ntfs-3g might be worth a second look. It does use time_t and timeval
quite a bit, but it seems to do so in inline functions from ntfstime.h
and internally use a "typedef sle64 ntfs_time;", so the library might
actually be unaffected and automatically provide ABI-duality via inline
functions! The lfs side looks less bright as e.g. FILEREADER embeds
off_t.
I also looked into a few more libraries affected by both /usr-move and
time64 and figured that none of the others seems worth a deeper look. In
general though approaching upstreams for doing a soname bump to
accommodate lfs+time64 seems like a reasonable thing to ask and maybe
like 10% agree?
Candidates approaching for soname bumps:
* libeinfo1
* libgsmme1
* libiv-unidraw2
* libparted-fs-resize0
* libparted2
* librc1
Also when looking into effort, please keep in mind that for every case
mentioned in this email, we're looking into adding a protective
diversion due to the package rename without so rename and then in forky
we'll have to clean up all those diversions, and in forky+1 we'll have
to delete the cleanup code, so while investing more now may seem more
expensive, it saves later.
Helmut
Reply to: