linux-kernel - Re: Missing include file in include/uapi/linux/errqueue.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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <CAOxa4Kpmg=S9SKc2s0MMD3jSpsQcq3s53263sOgE4KE=e496Sg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Sat, 9 Jul 2016 22:43:33 -0700
From:	Brooks Moses <bmoses@...gle.com>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Ian Kasprzak <iankaz@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: Missing include file in include/uapi/linux/errqueue.h?

On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 10:36 AM, Brooks Moses <bmoses@...gle.com> wrote:
> I've been attempting to qualify the Linux 4.5.2 user-space headers for
> a toolchain release, and ran into what looks like a missing include
> file in include/uapi/linux/errqueue.h.  In particular,
> https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/f24b9be5957b38bb420b838115040dc2031b7d0c
> adds the following to this file:
>
> +struct scm_timestamping {
> + struct timespec ts[3];
> +};
>
> However, struct timespec is defined in time.h, which isn't included
> either in 4.5.2 or in current head.  Is this simply a missing #include
> line, or am I misunderstanding something?

As a followup: Unfortunately the obvious fix -- adding "#include
<linux/time.h>" -- causes other problems, since linux/time.h is
incompatible with the glibc time.h such that including both of them
into the same compilation unit causes errors about redefined types.
And we, at least, have some programs that want to include
linux/errqueue.h and (glibc's) time.h.  The fix of adding "#include
<time.h>" to linux/errqueue.h seems to work for us, but I'm not sure
that won't cause problems in the other direction for other people.

- Brooks