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: <CAE2sS1jMhnRcoo1oe7wQ+SP=40u9mkps6vXua8TQQ4Tbf2qKOQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 17 Jan 2013 23:22:26 -0500
From:	"Carlos O'Donell" <carlos@...temhalted.org>
To:	Mike Frysinger <vapier@...too.org>
Cc:	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 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.

Cheers,
Carlos.
--
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/