Re: glibc 2.36 and DT_HASH (preserving it for F37+)

2022-09-27 Thread Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
On Fri, Sep 23, 2022 at 10:09:15AM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 11:27 PM Neal Gompa wrote: > > > > On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 4:13 AM Florian Weimer wrote: > > > > > > We are working on this and hope to have an update soon. > > > > > > > Well, we just released the Beta and peop

Re: glibc 2.36 and DT_HASH (preserving it for F37+)

2022-09-23 Thread Neal Gompa
On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 11:27 PM Neal Gompa wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 4:13 AM Florian Weimer wrote: > > > > We are working on this and hope to have an update soon. > > > > Well, we just released the Beta and people have noticed that this is > still broken. Do we have an ETA on a fix? Bec

Re: glibc 2.36 and DT_HASH (preserving it for F37+)

2022-09-14 Thread Florian Weimer
* Vitaly Zaitsev via devel: > On 14/09/2022 05:27, Neal Gompa wrote: >> Well, we just released the Beta and people have noticed that this is >> still broken. Do we have an ETA on a fix? Because this is going to be >> a major black eye for*us* if it stays broken through to GA. > > Epic Games had m

Re: glibc 2.36 and DT_HASH (preserving it for F37+)

2022-09-14 Thread Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
On 14/09/2022 05:27, Neal Gompa wrote: Well, we just released the Beta and people have noticed that this is still broken. Do we have an ETA on a fix? Because this is going to be a major black eye for*us* if it stays broken through to GA. Epic Games had more than a month to fix the problem but

Re: glibc 2.36 and DT_HASH (preserving it for F37+)

2022-09-13 Thread Neal Gompa
On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 4:13 AM Florian Weimer wrote: > > We are working on this and hope to have an update soon. > Well, we just released the Beta and people have noticed that this is still broken. Do we have an ETA on a fix? Because this is going to be a major black eye for *us* if it stays bro

Re: glibc 2.36 and DT_HASH (preserving it for F37+)

2022-08-23 Thread Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
On Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 10:31:03AM +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote: > On Mon, 2022-08-22 at 08:43 +0200, Christoph Erhardt wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > On Sunday, 21 August 2022 17:29:56 CEST Neal Gompa wrote: > > > I don't disagree that glibc should respect what distros set, I'm > > > just > > > asking u

Re: glibc 2.36 and DT_HASH (preserving it for F37+)

2022-08-23 Thread Florian Weimer
We are working on this and hope to have an update soon. Thanks, Florian ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en

Re: glibc 2.36 and DT_HASH (preserving it for F37+)

2022-08-22 Thread Sérgio Basto
On Mon, 2022-08-22 at 08:43 +0200, Christoph Erhardt wrote: > Hi all, > > On Sunday, 21 August 2022 17:29:56 CEST Neal Gompa wrote: > > I don't disagree that glibc should respect what distros set, I'm > > just > > asking us to build glibc with a DT_HASH table added until a formal > > deprecation/r

Re: glibc 2.36 and DT_HASH (preserving it for F37+)

2022-08-22 Thread Fabio Valentini
On Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 10:01 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 21, 2022 at 09:51:42AM -0700, John Reiser wrote: > > > it's clear there's a documentation problem [with DT_GNU_HASH] > > Partly due to lack of documentation, already I have seen "abuses" > > So what is > https://akkadia.org/drep

Re: glibc 2.36 and DT_HASH (preserving it for F37+)

2022-08-22 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Sun, Aug 21, 2022 at 09:51:42AM -0700, John Reiser wrote: > > it's clear there's a documentation problem [with DT_GNU_HASH] > Partly due to lack of documentation, already I have seen "abuses" So what is https://akkadia.org/drepper/dsohowto.pdf https://sourceware.org/legacy-ml/binutils/2006-10/m

Re: glibc 2.36 and DT_HASH (preserving it for F37+)

2022-08-21 Thread Christoph Erhardt
Hi all, On Sunday, 21 August 2022 17:29:56 CEST Neal Gompa wrote: > I don't disagree that glibc should respect what distros set, I'm just > asking us to build glibc with a DT_HASH table added until a formal > deprecation/retirement cycle is done with all stakeholders aware of > the change and ever

Re: glibc 2.36 and DT_HASH (preserving it for F37+)

2022-08-21 Thread Gary Buhrmaster
On Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 4:21 AM Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > PS: I find it incredibly rude to share a paywalled link on a public mailing > list, I 100% agree with this (although, to be slightly fair, this does regularly happen on many of the lists I read, as people just presume (falsely) that

Re: glibc 2.36 and DT_HASH (preserving it for F37+)

2022-08-21 Thread Kevin Kofler via devel
Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > Neal Gompa wrote: >> There's a pretty decent write-up about this on LWN: >> https://lwn.net/Articles/904892/ > > Here's a link that actually works: > https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/904892/dba951441b61cbdc/ > (Putting the title and "SubscriberLink", both between quot

Re: glibc 2.36 and DT_HASH (preserving it for F37+)

2022-08-21 Thread John Reiser
On 8/21/22 10:14, Demi Marie Obenour wrote: On 8/21/22 12:51, John Reiser wrote: it's clear there's a documentation problem [with DT_GNU_HASH] Partly due to lack of documentation, already I have seen "abuses" of the DT_GNU_HASH format. In particular, some versions of Rust and/or musl run-times

Re: glibc 2.36 and DT_HASH (preserving it for F37+)

2022-08-21 Thread Demi Marie Obenour
On 8/21/22 12:51, John Reiser wrote: >> it's clear there's a documentation problem [with DT_GNU_HASH] > Partly due to lack of documentation, already I have seen "abuses" > of the DT_GNU_HASH format. In particular, some versions of Rust > and/or musl run-times use (0 == nbucket) to mean something l

Re: glibc 2.36 and DT_HASH (preserving it for F37+)

2022-08-21 Thread John Reiser
it's clear there's a documentation problem [with DT_GNU_HASH] Partly due to lack of documentation, already I have seen "abuses" of the DT_GNU_HASH format. In particular, some versions of Rust and/or musl run-times use (0 == nbucket) to mean something like "there is no hash table information" but

Re: glibc 2.36 and DT_HASH (preserving it for F37+)

2022-08-21 Thread Neal Gompa
On Sun, Aug 21, 2022 at 9:19 AM Jan Drögehoff wrote: > > > On 8/21/22 12:44, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 21, 2022 at 12:05:11PM +0200, Jan Drögehoff wrote: > >>> It's Epic's fault. They must update their anti-cheat to use the modern > >>> API. > >> More reports have come out claiming this

Re: glibc 2.36 and DT_HASH (preserving it for F37+)

2022-08-21 Thread Jan Drögehoff
On 8/21/22 12:44, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Sun, Aug 21, 2022 at 12:05:11PM +0200, Jan Drögehoff wrote: It's Epic's fault. They must update their anti-cheat to use the modern API. More reports have come out claiming this also affects the game Shovel Knight[2] and the open source library libstran

Re: glibc 2.36 and DT_HASH (preserving it for F37+)

2022-08-21 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Sun, Aug 21, 2022 at 12:05:11PM +0200, Jan Drögehoff wrote: > > It's Epic's fault. They must update their anti-cheat to use the modern > > API. > > More reports have come out claiming this also affects the game Shovel > Knight[2] and the open source library libstrangle[3], there is the non 0 >

Re: glibc 2.36 and DT_HASH (preserving it for F37+)

2022-08-21 Thread Jan Drögehoff
On 8/21/22 10:59, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: On 20/08/2022 21:42, Neal Gompa wrote: It seems that upstream glibc disabled support for generating DT_HASH tables for its libraries and binaries, which breaks Linux games that use Epic Games' Easy Anti-Cheat (EAC). DT_HASH was deprecated for 15

Re: glibc 2.36 and DT_HASH (preserving it for F37+)

2022-08-21 Thread Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
On 20/08/2022 21:42, Neal Gompa wrote: It seems that upstream glibc disabled support for generating DT_HASH tables for its libraries and binaries, which breaks Linux games that use Epic Games' Easy Anti-Cheat (EAC). DT_HASH was deprecated for 15+ years. We shouldn't take care of proprietary DR

Re: glibc 2.36 and DT_HASH (preserving it for F37+)

2022-08-20 Thread Kevin Kofler via devel
Neal Gompa wrote: > There's a pretty decent write-up about this on LWN: > https://lwn.net/Articles/904892/ Here's a link that actually works: https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/904892/dba951441b61cbdc/ (Putting the title and "SubscriberLink", both between quotes, into a search engine does wonders.)

Re: glibc 2.36 and DT_HASH (preserving it for F37+)

2022-08-20 Thread Leigh Scott
I'm inclined to vote -1, if everyone keeps DT_HASH around I doubt Epic will fix the issue. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.

glibc 2.36 and DT_HASH (preserving it for F37+)

2022-08-20 Thread Neal Gompa
Hey all, It seems that upstream glibc disabled support for generating DT_HASH tables for its libraries and binaries, which breaks Linux games that use Epic Games' Easy Anti-Cheat (EAC). There's a pretty decent write-up about this on LWN: https://lwn.net/Articles/904892/ Can we turn this back on