On Thu, Mar 07, 2024 at 07:47:23PM +0100, Bernd Schubert wrote: > Hi all, > > this is certainly not kind of the mail I was hoping for as a new libfuse > maintainer. > > As you can see from the title and from discussion below (sorry this is > not typical ML discussion style), we have a bit of of problem with > libfuse ABI compatibility.
[...] > >> On 3/7/24 16:43, Ashley Pittman wrote: > >>> I’ve spotted an issue with the linked commit, the fuse_file_info struct > >>> should have been modified by adding new entries just before the padding, > >>> with this commit then members after the new entry will be moved creating > >>> a change in the ABI for members after this. > >>> > >>> https://github.com/libfuse/libfuse/commit/a5eb7f2a0117ab43119ef5724cf5f4f2f181804a > >>> > >>> This affects the flush, nonseekable, flock_release, cache_readdir and > >>> noflush flags, each one of which could be set or cleared accidentally > >>> with one of the flags before or after it depending on what version of > >>> libfuse the application is compiled and linked with. > >>> > >>> This isn’t a failure mode that I’ve experience before when using linux so > >>> I don’t have a playbook to work from in how to correct this but > >>> essentially fuse3 releases up to and including 3.13 have one ABI and 3.13 > >>> to 3.16 have a different ABI. Not strictly related to the change at hand, but since we're discussing recent-ish changes that negatively affected backwards compatibility in libfuse I will mention this too: https://bugs.debian.org/1031802 It has been reported downstream a year ago, but I'm not sure if it ever got upstream's attention. Now it should have :) -- Andrea Bolognani <e...@kiyuko.org> Resistance is futile, you will be garbage collected.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
