From owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org Fri Jul 17 15:45:46 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D42A9A4A14 for ; Fri, 17 Jul 2015 15:45:46 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from julian@freebsd.org) Received: from mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (mailman.ysv.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::50:5]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81DF812B3 for ; Fri, 17 Jul 2015 15:45:46 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from julian@freebsd.org) Received: by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) id 7EB9A9A4A13; Fri, 17 Jul 2015 15:45:46 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: current@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E44D9A4A12 for ; Fri, 17 Jul 2015 15:45:46 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from julian@freebsd.org) Received: from vps1.elischer.org (vps1.elischer.org [204.109.63.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "vps1.elischer.org", Issuer "CA Cert Signing Authority" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3B5FE12B2 for ; Fri, 17 Jul 2015 15:45:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from julian@freebsd.org) Received: from Julian-MBP3.local (ppp121-45-240-47.lns20.per4.internode.on.net [121.45.240.47]) (authenticated bits=0) by vps1.elischer.org (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id t6HFjc79090277 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 17 Jul 2015 08:45:42 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from julian@freebsd.org) Message-ID: <55A9231C.90101@freebsd.org> Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2015 23:45:32 +0800 From: Julian Elischer User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Konstantin Belousov CC: Conrad Meyer , Venkat Duvvuru , current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Kernel Application Binary Interface (kABI) support in FreeBSD References: <55A9157A.8050208@freebsd.org> <55A919D7.7020402@freebsd.org> <20150717153117.GD2404@kib.kiev.ua> In-Reply-To: <20150717153117.GD2404@kib.kiev.ua> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2015 15:45:46 -0000 On 7/17/15 11:31 PM, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 11:05:59PM +0800, Julian Elischer wrote: >> On 7/17/15 10:59 PM, Conrad Meyer wrote: >>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 7:47 AM, Julian Elischer wrote: >>>> On 7/17/15 9:02 PM, Venkat Duvvuru wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> Is there kABI (Kabi-whitelist) equivalent feature in FreeBSD? >>>> well, yes and no. >>> Julian, >>> >>> I believe Venkat is asking about a specific Linux package, >>> kabi-whitelists. It contains a list of ABIs considered "stable" in a >>> given RHEL release, and a checker that (?)validates programs to only >>> contain "stable" calls (guessing a little bit, but it has some sort of >>> checker anyway). >> yes I know.. but that is needed because linux does NOT maintain kABI >> compatibility. >> We don't need it as much. > Don't you see the self-contradiction in your statements ? > Linux does maintain ABI stability, and the tool asked about, is the tool > to ensure that the stability is provided. no I don't see that > > We try to provide the stability, except when people ignore the issue, or > make stupid decisions without concerning the future. And, althought we > do have some very basic tools to check the changes in ABI of the given > component, but we do not have any registry of the stable ABI and we do > not detect the abrupt unintended ABI breakage in automated way. yes people do break it but they are going against project policy when they do and are often called out for it. > > Neither we have a tool to ensure that applications do not mis-use non-public > interfaces or interfaces which are not stable. This is a consequence of > the missed registry. > > I noted the provoking haughtiness among many developers WRT ours/Linux > ABI stability guarantees, while the real state is exactly opposed. The > tirade is written to make more people aware of the thing and raising the > desire to keep OS quality higher in this regard. > I don't think there is haughtiness.. I think we do a reasonable job in trying to maintain kABI compatibility. sometimes we mess up, it's true but overall it's been pretty amazing. My main question to the OP is "what do you want to do?"