linux-kernel - Re: Redefinition of struct in6_addr in <netinet/in.h> and <linux/in6.h>

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: <50F927A5.5060409@redhat.com>
Date:	Fri, 18 Jan 2013 10:44:53 +0000
From:	Pedro Alves <palves@...hat.com>
To:	"Carlos O'Donell" <carlos@...temhalted.org>
CC:	Mike Frysinger <vapier@...too.org>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, libc-alpha@...rceware.org,
	bhutchings@...arflare.com, yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org,
	amwang@...hat.com, tmb@...eia.org, eblake@...hat.com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	libvirt-list@...hat.com, tgraf@...g.ch, schwab@...e.de
Subject: Re: Redefinition of struct in6_addr in <netinet/in.h> and <linux/in6.h>

On 01/18/2013 04:22 AM, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 11:20 PM, Mike Frysinger <vapier@...too.org> wrote:
>> On Wednesday 16 January 2013 22:15:38 David Miller wrote:
>>> From: Carlos O'Donell <carlos@...temhalted.org>
>>> Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 21:15:03 -0500
>>>
>>>> +/* If a glibc-based userspace has already included in.h, then we will
>>>> not + * define in6_addr (nor the defines), sockaddr_in6, or ipv6_mreq.
>>>> The + * ABI used by the kernel and by glibc match exactly. Neither the
>>>> kernel + * nor glibc should break this ABI without coordination.
>>>> + */
>>>> +#ifndef _NETINET_IN_H
>>>> +
>>>
>>> I think we should shoot for a non-glibc-centric solution.
>>>
>>> I can't imagine that other libc's won't have the same exact problem
>>> with their netinet/in.h conflicting with the kernel's, redefining
>>> structures like in6_addr, that we'd want to provide a protection
>>> scheme for here as well.
>>
>> yes, the kernel's use of __GLIBC__ in exported headers has already caused
>> problems in the past.  fortunately, it's been reduced down to just one case
>> now (stat.h).  let's not balloon it back up.
>> -mike
> 
> I also see coda.h has grown a __GLIBC__ usage.
> 
> In the next revision of the patch I created a single libc-compat.h header
> which encompasses the logic for any libc that wants to coordinate with
> the kernel headers.


> It's simple enough to move all of the __GLIBC__ uses into libc-compat.h,
> then you control userspace libc coordination from one file.

How about just deciding on a single macro/symbol both the
kernel and libc (any libc that needs this) define?  Something
like both the kernel and userland doing:

#ifndef __IPV6_BITS_DEFINED
#define __IPV6_BITS_DEFINED
...
define in6_addr, sockaddr_in6, ipv6_mreq, whatnot
#endif

So whichever the application includes first, wins.
Too naive?  I didn't see this option being discarded, so
not sure it was considered.

-- 
Pedro Alves

--
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/