linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v05 69/72] uapi rose.h: glibc netrose/rose.h header file compatibility fixes

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: <57C2DB15.3050103@bfs.de>
Date:   Sun, 28 Aug 2016 14:37:41 +0200
From:   walter harms <wharms@....de>
To:     Mikko Rapeli <mikko.rapeli@....fi>
CC:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-hams@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v05 69/72] uapi rose.h: glibc netrose/rose.h header file
 compatibility fixes



Am 28.08.2016 07:59, schrieb Mikko Rapeli:
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 05:38:00PM +0200, walter harms wrote:
>> perhaps this not tested snipped would make sure that
>> you have included linux/rose.h ?
>>
>> #ifndef ROSE_KERNEL_H
>> #include <linux/rose.h>
>> #endif
>>
>> #include <netrose/rose.h>
> 
> Sorry, I did not quite get this.
> 
> <linux/rose.h> has conflicting definitions with glibc <netrose/rose.h>.
> The patches fixes the uapi headers <linux/rose.h> so that it hides
> definitions if <netrose/rose.h> from glibc was already included.
> 
> -Mikko

no problem,
so far i understand the conflict arise because you need to include
linux/rose.h before netrose/rose.h

My suggestion was to add a check for linux/rose.h (ROSE_KERNEL_H)
and include it if not already done. (basicly this should work out
of the box but it seems a problem here).

I have no idea if you need to cover other cases but in my
understanding userspace programms should not include kernel headers.

re,
 wh