linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] uapi glibc compat: fix musl libc compatibility

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: <1492719277.8404.16.camel@infradead.org>
Date:   Thu, 20 Apr 2017 21:14:37 +0100
From:   David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, hauke@...ke-m.de
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        jarod@...hat.com, jogo@...nwrt.org, david.heidelberger@...t.cz,
        maillist-linux@...fooze.de, mikko.rapeli@....fi
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] uapi glibc compat: fix musl libc compatibility

On Thu, 2017-04-20 at 16:07 -0400, David Miller wrote:
> 
> I think I have to put the brakes on this patch series, after much
> consideration.
> 
> It does not scale if we continually add a hodge-podge of different
> ifdef tests to the UAPI headers in order to prevent mutliple
> definitions.
> 
> We will add that IFF_ECHO ifdef for MUSL libc today, and for another
> libc we will add another such hack.  And so on and so forth...
> 
> Instead, LIBC implementation must adopt the ifdef protections which
> have standard names and are being adopted by GLIBC and hopefully
> others.

I agree, except I don't think you're going far enough. Those "standard
names" you mention... some of this stuff actually depends on __GLIBC__,
and *that* isn't right either.

I tried to kill that off completely and make the kernel entirely
agnostic, in https://marc.info/?l=linux-api&m=148898383805658&w=2
Download attachment "smime.p7s" of type "application/x-pkcs7-signature" (4938 bytes)