Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2025 22:37:57 +0200 From: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> To: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@freebsd.org> Cc: Mark Johnston <markj@freebsd.org>, src-committers@freebsd.org, dev-commits-src-all@freebsd.org, dev-commits-src-main@freebsd.org Subject: Re: git: e967a2a03677 - main - sockets: remove compat shim for divert(4) Message-ID: <aUW3pdfo1PvTgzDr@kib.kiev.ua> In-Reply-To: <aUWy_L-wO0XcI5Do@cell.glebi.us> References: <693a275a.2e7b3.1858af56@gitrepo.freebsd.org> <aTo89YdeZByEuZov@kib.kiev.ua> <aUVralcxtt3d8plJ@nuc> <aUWP0F-5QH5DMxZn@cell.glebi.us> <aUWRwsk5Xly_KLV5@kib.kiev.ua> <aUWUaawaU8RbsS_l@cell.glebi.us> <aUWuHb-l6SGV3CV-@kib.kiev.ua> <aUWy_L-wO0XcI5Do@cell.glebi.us>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On Fri, Dec 19, 2025 at 12:18:04PM -0800, Gleb Smirnoff wrote: > On Fri, Dec 19, 2025 at 09:57:17PM +0200, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > K> We are discussing different things altogether. > K> > K> I am saying that you are breaking binary compatibility, and asking why. > K> I do not see a reason. > K> > K> It has no relation to the fact that there are other ways to get the same > K> behaviour from the system. The removal of that three lines breaks existing > K> binaries. Also it does not matter that e.g. newer versions of some apps > K> do not use that feature (feature as in binary interface, not a system > K> behaviour). The existing binaries must continue to work. > > We already have had this argument before for a different kind of issue - > POLLINIGNEOF. The existence of such binaries is like existence the the God. > You can't prove they exist. I can't prove they do not exist. You advocate for > the compat shim to exist forever. I advocate to limit it existence to some > countable number of years. > > For this particular case all open source software had been addressed. There > are no known shareware binaries in the wild that used AF_INET/IPPROTO_DIVERT. I do not understand this statement. It was demonstrated in this thread that python had it. > Those hypothethical binaries that we can't prove/refute existence of in some > corporate environments would print a warning on 14.x and on 15.x providing a > time to their owners to recompile. If we speculate that somewhere in the > universe exists a corporate body that uses AF_INET/IPPROTO_DIVERT tuple in > their internal software and have lost its source code, they have a solution. > The solution is a tiny preloaded library that would intercept socket(2). Of > course you may say that somewhere in the world exists a closed ecosystem that > uses AF_INET/IPPROTO_DIVERT in a binary AND the sources for the binary were > lost AND the binary is statically compiled. If you decide to go that deep into > the rabbit hole, I would reply that owners of such a binary should bit hack it > to use the correct tuple before call to socket(2). No. You abruptly break binary compatibility and claim that this is fine. It is not.help
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?aUW3pdfo1PvTgzDr>