linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] perf auto-dep: Speed up feature tests by building them in parallel

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]

Date:	Tue, 1 Oct 2013 10:38:07 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>,
	David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>, Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf auto-dep: Speed up feature tests by building them
 in parallel


* Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 7:34 PM, Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
> > <acme@...stprotocols.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> Checking why that strlcpy failed...
> >
> > I don't think glibc does strlcpy. It's not a standard C function, and
> > it's somewhat controversial (although I dislike strncpy more with the
> > crazy zero-padding, ugh).
> 
> Indeed, e.g. on Ubuntu it's in libbsd, so you also need to #include
> <bsd/string.h> and link with -lbsd.

Well, the point of the feature test is not to pick up an external 
definition of strlcpy(), but to keep working on systems where strcpy() has 
been patched into _glibc_, where we cannot avoid linking to it. (ARCH 
Linux is such a distribution for example.)

So it's a quirk in essence - and I think marking our implementation as 
__weak ought to solve that.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/