> There is no way to be sure that this change is not quietly damaging untold amounts of data without auditing every use of memcpy everywhere to ensure that it is doing the right thing.
There is also no way to be sure that this change is not _fixing_ untold amounts of data corruption when the memcpy is done backward without auditing every use of memcpy :)
Anyway, C being what it is, this is a little ridiculous to do a fixation on that particular change, because some other changes exposing bugs are done every day, hundred at a time. So really, you have no way after ANY upgrade to be sure that memory corruption won't mysteriously happens when they previously did not. If that's a problem for you, don't ever update anything => problem magically solved.
> given that Glibc has symbol versioning, maybe they should use it?
Nope. Symbol versioning is for ABI changes, and symbol versioning does not even pretend to automatically solve every problem ABI changes has been shown to cause. The memcpy implementation change is not even an ABI change.
> Your last sentence sums up the problem: "Hopefully legitimate uses are not affected". I think we should expect stronger guarantees from glibc than "hopefully".
There was a problem only in the sentence. The "hopefully" is not needed. Legitimate users of memcpy will not be affected.