linux-kernel - Re: just how "sanitized" are the sanitized headers?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <b6fcc0a0611300026y6defe704o4f7dd4f1e82d5c1b@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 30 Nov 2006 11:26:04 +0300
From:	"Alexey Dobriyan" <adobriyan@...il.com>
To:	"Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@...dspring.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: just how "sanitized" are the sanitized headers?

On 11/30/06, Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@...dspring.com> wrote:
>   i noticed that, when i generate the sanitized headers with "make
> headers_install", there are still a number of headers files that are
> installed with variations on "#ifdef __KERNEL__".
>
>   i always thought the fundamental property of sanitized headers was
> to be compatible with glibc

You were wrong.

> and have no traces of "KERNEL" content
> left.

That's correct.

> so what's the purpose of leaving some header files with that
> preprocessor content?

When you see __KERNEL__ in sanitized headers, it's either due to
a) unifdef bug, or
b) header being listed in header-y when it should be listed in unifdef-y
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/