linux-kernel - Re: [rfc] headers_check cleanups break the whole world

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: <20090225113423.GA22445@uranus.ravnborg.org>
Date:	Wed, 25 Feb 2009 12:34:23 +0100
From:	Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	Kyle McMartin <kyle@...radead.org>,
	Jaswinder Singh Rajput <jaswinderrajput@...il.com>,
	mingo@...hat.com, dwmw2@...radead.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hpa@...or.com
Subject: Re: [rfc] headers_check cleanups break the whole world

> 
> __KERNEL_STRICT_NAMES is a really old construct that has been 
> with us forever. It's not widely used ... i dont know how widely 
> it's being relied on. Sam, should we get rid of it, or should 
> user-space define __KERNEL_STRICT_NAMES in cases the glibc 
> definition collides with the kernel's definition?

hpa already answered this question and he knows
the userland<->kernel stuff better than I do.

IMO the best thing would be that Arnd rebased his original patch
and we get that rewieved and in the end applied.

	Sam
--
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/