Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2013 11:53:03 -0600 From: Brooks Davis <brooks@freebsd.org> To: Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com> Cc: Kimmo Paasiala <kpaasial@gmail.com>, Brooks Davis <brooks@freebsd.org>, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, Dimitry Andric <dim@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: CLANG 3.2 breaks security/pam_ssh_agent_auth on stable/9 Message-ID: <20130201175303.GA5914@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> In-Reply-To: <20130201042244.GC20772@lonesome.com> References: <CA%2B7WWSeOpuAv9PL2_G6Z1Q_SLv5xcTjcujiw6Rs8tdBsrLO7wQ@mail.gmail.com> <50F6D20A.6070306@FreeBSD.org> <CA%2B7WWSfE1bAr7GriRGAKBVpkiNE%2Btn-%2Bd0cO3vpNPY-SWxfghg@mail.gmail.com> <CA%2B7WWSetWhiVB-t9vewa372DH-YSfEjdFXDZOzOMq_PXDnV-ew@mail.gmail.com> <20130117151502.GF29437@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> <20130201042244.GC20772@lonesome.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--pWyiEgJYm5f9v55/ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 10:22:44PM -0600, Mark Linimon wrote: > On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 09:15:02AM -0600, Brooks Davis wrote: > > Not unless you consider adding new functions in a reserved namespace > > (str*) to be ABI breakage. >=20 > Well, what often happens is that when we add new functions, ports break. > I think deciding whether this is or is not "ABI breakage" is semantics. > The fact is that regressions get introduced with these types of changes. >=20 > > The port should have continued to work unless it was recompiled so it > > should have preferred it's own version of the strnvis symbol. If its > > makefiles were properly constructed it would have failed to compile > > due to the signature mismatch. >=20 > The mantra should be "every possible combination of ways that a port's > internal build glue can be wrong, is already included in the Ports Collec= tion." > In case after case we see fragile code that is written by people who are > clearly not professionally trained. They "get it to work on their system" > and then shove it out the door. >=20 > Claiming that "they shouldn't do that" is correct but self-defeating. > It's just the reality of open-source software. I'm not sure why I'm being jumped on me in this weeks old report of a now-fixed problem. I did determine to root cause and others produced a patch. If no one else had stepped up I would have done so my self. > IMHO, the burden should be on whoever makes the change to find out whether > or not regressions will be introduced. (And yes, I am very aware that we > don't have -exp run capability right now, but this is one of the cases > where I would like to suggest it would have helped.) I would likely have done an exp run had there been the capability of doing one, but this bug would not have been found since it's a runtime crash caused by a combination of two different BSD projects not talking to each other and poorly chosen CFLAGS in the upstream software allowing it to compile. One could probably write a tool to detect some forms this sort of issue (even premptively), but it's probably not worth doing. -- Brooks --pWyiEgJYm5f9v55/ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFRDAD/XY6L6fI4GtQRAgllAJ9dWqbKtUsVMUjayOIe3joOoem+SACfQUjF hM3JRL77y9So4+154fcJn30= =r26r -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --pWyiEgJYm5f9v55/--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20130201175303.GA5914>