From: "Ruben Winistörfer" <r.winist@bluewin.ch>
To: musl@lists.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Re: musl and kernel headers [was Re: system-images 1.4.2: od is broken; bzip2 is missing]
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 16:16:30 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <561D123E.1040107@bluewin.ch> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAK1hOcM9hiHAwo-7Tkkydz72-euMmkeL7GieRsQH3Luc4cZB9Q@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3375 bytes --]
I just have modified the Alpine Linux kernel header patches to use them
with the 4.2.3 version.
(Not sure if that is a good idea, but why not try it...)
So I am wondering right now, if they haven't solved the problem already
you're discussing about.
http://git.alpinelinux.org/cgit/aports/tree/main/linux-headers
There is a patch for libc-compat.h...
Maybe it helps, otherwise ignore my "interruption". ;-)
Ruben
Denys Vlasenko schrieb:
> On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 9:46 PM, Rich Felker<dalias@aerifal.cx> wrote:
>>> Looking at kernel's libc-compat.h, it looks like you can get away
>>> with using __UAPI_DEF_foo's like this?
>>>
>>>
>>> #if defined(__UAPI_DEF_SOCKADDR_IN)&& __UAPI_DEF_SOCKADDR_IN == 1
>>> /* kernel already defined the struct, do nothing */
>>> #else
>>> struct sockaddr_in {
>>> ...
>>> };
>> This would address the case where the kernel header is included first,
>> but it's not a case I or most of the musl community wants to support,
>> because there's no guarantee that the kernel's definitions of these
>> structures will actually be compatible with use elsewhere in the libc
>> headers, etc.
>
> If kernel's definition does not match yours, there is a much
> bigger problem than "includes do not compile":
> kernel and userspace definitions of these structs *must* match
> (modulo harmless things like different typedef names for field types).
>
> So in this case either kernel or libc would need to be fixed.
>
>> The other direction, suppressing kernel headers' definition of the
>> structs, is what we want to work, but they've restricted their logic
>> for that to only work when __GLIBC__ is defined. :(
>
> Yes, you will have to do by hand the thing which kernel
> automagically does for glibc - namely, define to 0:
>
>>> #undef __UAPI_DEF_SOCKADDR_IN
>>> /* tell kernel to not define the struct */
>>> #define __UAPI_DEF_SOCKADDR_IN 0
>>> #endif
>
>> We could do something like this but then we would need to keep up with
>> the list of all the __UAPI defines we need to suppress unwanted kernel
>> definitions.
>
> Looking at libc-compat.h, this list is at the moment only about
> 13 defines long:
>
> #define __UAPI_DEF_IN_ADDR 0
> #define __UAPI_DEF_IN_IPPROTO 0
> #define __UAPI_DEF_IN_PKTINFO 0
> #define __UAPI_DEF_IP_MREQ 0
> #define __UAPI_DEF_SOCKADDR_IN 0
> #define __UAPI_DEF_IN_CLASS 0
> #define __UAPI_DEF_IN6_ADDR 0
> #define __UAPI_DEF_SOCKADDR_IN6 0
> #define __UAPI_DEF_IPV6_MREQ 0
> #define __UAPI_DEF_IPPROTO_V6 0
> #define __UAPI_DEF_IPV6_OPTIONS 0
> #define __UAPI_DEF_IN6_PKTINFO 0
> #define __UAPI_DEF_IP6_MTUINFO 0
>
>
>> What if we could get the kernel to change the #if defined(__GLIBC__)
>> to #if defined(__GLIBC__) || defined(__UAPI_DONTNEED_DEFS) or similar,
>> so that there would only be one macro we need to define, and the
>> kernel would then use the same logic it uses with glibc to suppress
>> all of these.
>
> Or ask kernel to remove "define to 0" glibc hack and ask glibc to
> do its own job. Why one libc should have preferential treatment?
>
> Or ask kernel to stop using structures with userspace names.
> This should not be that hard:
>
> struct __kernel_sockaddr_in {...}
> #if __KERNEL__
> # define sockaddr_in __kernel_sockaddr_in
> #endif
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4291 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-10-13 14:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <CAK1hOcNm-rwGdr1_THZoHA-TTxOjpzUU=Lnraqt6mj+JmBdvFw@mail.gmail.com>
[not found] ` <5612925A.4070402@landley.net>
2015-10-06 1:44 ` Rich Felker
2015-10-06 2:24 ` Rob Landley
2015-10-06 11:01 ` Szabolcs Nagy
2015-10-06 14:30 ` Rich Felker
2015-10-06 16:05 ` Denys Vlasenko
2015-10-06 16:09 ` Denys Vlasenko
2015-10-08 16:58 ` Rich Felker
2015-10-09 19:11 ` Denys Vlasenko
2015-10-09 19:46 ` Rich Felker
2015-10-10 4:56 ` Rob Landley
2015-10-13 12:10 ` Denys Vlasenko
2015-10-13 14:16 ` Ruben Winistörfer [this message]
2015-10-13 14:53 ` Szabolcs Nagy
2015-10-13 15:05 ` Rich Felker
2015-10-13 18:02 ` Denys Vlasenko
2015-10-13 18:56 ` Rich Felker
2015-10-13 15:10 ` Rich Felker
2015-10-13 21:55 ` Isaac Dunham
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=561D123E.1040107@bluewin.ch \
--to=r.winist@bluewin.ch \
--cc=musl@lists.openwall.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://git.vuxu.org/mirror/musl/
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).