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: <25477d46-b100-ce87-98d9-8c5e02d409b8@hauke-m.de>
Date:   Fri, 21 Apr 2017 15:14:21 +0200
From:   Hauke Mehrtens <hauke@...ke-m.de>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, dwmw2@...radead.org
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,
        musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] uapi glibc compat: fix musl libc compatibility



On 04/20/2017 10:36 PM, David Miller wrote:
> From: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
> Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 21:14:37 +0100
> 
>> 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.
> 
> Yep, that's something that needs correcting.
> 
Should all libc implementations define __GLIBC__ or could we at least
switch the kernel UAPI to !__KERNEL__ here?

Hauke