the sorry saga of the talloc soname 'fix'

Volker Lendecke Volker.Lendecke at SerNet.DE
Mon Jul 6 13:36:18 GMT 2009

On Mon, Jul 06, 2009 at 11:10:11PM +1000, tridge at wrote:
>  > So if we skipped the "location" piece of the change, the
>  > error messages would get a lot less useful, and the only
>  > real change would be to create memory leaks in already
>  > broken code. Right?
> yep. I did think about doing that, but I really disliked the idea of
> creating a bunch of very difficult to track down leaks.

These leaks would come along with the not-so-easily-readable
error messages.

From my point of view this is a valid compromise: In the
shipped versions of talloc just warn that something is
wrong. The message should carry a warning that potentially a
leak was created. If a developer wants to reproduce this
[s]he is free to use a "checked build" version of the
application, compiled against the "location"-aware talloc
headers and .so.

This way we don't have to break anything and just increment
the minor version number due to talloc_reparent being added.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url :

More information about the samba-technical mailing list