From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/13872 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Rich Felker Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: ABI compatibility between versions Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2019 10:11:37 -0500 Message-ID: <20190226151137.GR23599@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <20190226003353.GP23599@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20190226095837.GC21289@port70.net> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="154813"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: musl@lists.openwall.com To: Alexander Revin Original-X-From: musl-return-13888-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Tue Feb 26 16:11:53 2019 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by blaine.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1gyeOe-000e9S-Su for gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org; Tue, 26 Feb 2019 16:11:52 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 19558 invoked by uid 550); 26 Feb 2019 15:11:50 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-ID: Original-Received: (qmail 19507 invoked from network); 26 Feb 2019 15:11:50 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Original-Sender: Rich Felker Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:13872 Archived-At: On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 12:28:31PM +0100, Alexander Revin wrote: > Thanks for your answers. > > > but for this reason a binary compiled against a new version > > of glibc is unlikely to work with an older version (which > > is why anybody who wants to distribute a binary that works > > across different linux distros, compiles against a very old > > version of glibc, which of course means lots of old bugs) > > while for musl such breakage is much more rare (happens > > when a new symbol is introduced and the binary uses that). > > So it generally similar to glibc approach – link against old musl, > which doesn't expose new symbols? This works but isn't necessarily needed. As long as your application does not use any symbols that were introduced in a newer musl, it will run with an older one, subject to any bugs the older one might have. If configure is detecting and causing the program's build process to link to new symbols in the newer musl, and you don't want to depend on that, you can usually override the detections with configure variables on the configure command line or in an explicit config.cache file, or equivalent for other non-autoconf-based build systems. > I'm asking this because I'm investigating efforts required to bring > Python native modules support to musl (at the present moment it's > impossible to install any Python native module on musl system without > recompiling) – discussion is here: > https://mail.python.org/archives/list/distutils-sig@python.org/thread/H3323AXRRLJAYOY2XZKS74IOUQMJUOYD/ > > On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 10:58 AM Szabolcs Nagy wrote: > > > > * Rich Felker [2019-02-25 19:33:53 -0500]: > > > On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 12:18:06AM +0100, Alexander Revin wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > I know this have been briefly discussed here before, but still: does > > > > musl guarantee in some way that executable/library compiled against > > > > one musl version will work with another (for example, 1.18 and 1.21) > > > > ? > > > > > > > > I remember there were concerns against embedding versioning > > > > information in musl like glibc does, but is there a way to somehow > > > > ensure the stability between releases? > > > > > > It guarantees that there is no ABI mismatch. That's not entirely the > > > same as guaranteeing that it will work. If the application was relying > > > on a bug in an old version to function, or was poking at some > > > accidentally-exposed libc internals not defined as a public interface, > > > it's possible that updating libc.so will expose this bug in the > > > application. > > > > > > This is different from the glibc approach, which is to use symbol > > > versioning to attempt to retain "bug-compatibility" with the version > > > of glibc the application was linked with. Such a system forces new > > > application binaries that want to be able to run on systems with old > > > glibc to link against the old glibc, and thereby get the buggy > > > behaviors even if they're running on a system without the bugs. Myself > > > and most of the musl community I'm aware of consider this entirely > > > unreasonable, and that's why musl doesn't do it. > > > > i just want to add that glibc makes a distinction as well > > between public api contract and implementation internals > > and it does not aim to be compatible with anything that > > depends on internals (unless there is a strong reason > > to do so) so a binary may not work across glibc versions. > > > > other than the bug compatibility, a difference between the > > two approaches is that glibc may do certain abi breaking > > changes while keeping old binaries work, that musl cant do. > > but for this reason a binary compiled against a new version > > of glibc is unlikely to work with an older version (which > > is why anybody who wants to distribute a binary that works > > across different linux distros, compiles against a very old > > version of glibc, which of course means lots of old bugs) > > while for musl such breakage is much more rare (happens > > when a new symbol is introduced and the binary uses that).