[QUICK] talloc bugs

simo idra at samba.org
Wed Jul 1 12:27:38 GMT 2009

On Wed, 2009-07-01 at 22:12 +1000, tridge at samba.org wrote:
> Hi Simo,
>  > In any case I'd like to stress we need to maintain ABI compatibility, so
>  > whatever the decision I think we need still quite some work on what was
>  > currently committed (possibly with a revert first).
> To justify that please point me at a valid use of talloc that was in
> our tree that the change broke. 
> The change affected code that was already ambiguous. Ambiguous code is
> something we always want to avoid, and we should not be preserving
> ambiguous APIs.
> Regarding the ABI, yes I broke that as talloc_free was a function and
> is now a macro.

It's not just talloc_free(), you changed the signature of
_talloc_steal() and _talloc_reference(), see the talloc.signature file
Standalone talloc is incidentally broken now of course (talloc.exports
for details).

>  That means a recompile. Has talloc usage outside of
> Samba really grown to the point where a recompile is unacceptable?

Yes, in fedora alone even evolution depends on talloc through
openchange. Openchange itself may be broken by this change too of

> Shouldn't the person building the package just bump the version
> number?

No, it's not *a* person, there are libraries that depend on talloc, so
it is a chain of dependencies that is quite big.
The only way to solve the problem, would be to fork talloc, but I think
the changes made are not important enough to warrant a fork.


Simo Sorce
Samba Team GPL Compliance Officer <simo at samba.org>
Principal Software Engineer at Red Hat, Inc. <simo at redhat.com>

More information about the samba-technical mailing list