mailing list of musl libc
 help / color / mirror / code / Atom feed
From: Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@googlemail.com>
To: Rich Felker <dalias@aerifal.cx>
Cc: Rob Landley <rob@landley.net>,
	Aboriginal Linux <aboriginal@lists.landley.net>,
	 musl <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 14:10:24 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAK1hOcM9hiHAwo-7Tkkydz72-euMmkeL7GieRsQH3Luc4cZB9Q@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20151009194641.GI8645@brightrain.aerifal.cx>

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


  parent reply	other threads:[~2015-10-13 12:10 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 [this message]
2015-10-13 14:16               ` Ruben Winistörfer
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=CAK1hOcM9hiHAwo-7Tkkydz72-euMmkeL7GieRsQH3Luc4cZB9Q@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=vda.linux@googlemail.com \
    --cc=aboriginal@lists.landley.net \
    --cc=dalias@aerifal.cx \
    --cc=musl@lists.openwall.com \
    --cc=rob@landley.net \
    /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).