linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] tools/lib/traceevent: Replace str_error

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: <20181005154740.GD20250@kernel.org>
Date:   Fri, 5 Oct 2018 12:47:40 -0300
From:   Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
        Tzvetomir Stoyanov <tz.stoyanov@...il.com>,
        Linux Trace Devel <linux-trace-devel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Colin Patrick McCabe <cmccabe@...mni.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] tools/lib/traceevent: Replace str_error_r() with an
 open coded implementation

Em Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 11:45:16AM -0400, Steven Rostedt escreveu:
> On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 12:37:31 -0300
> Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org> wrote:
> 
> > Em Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 11:30:56AM -0400, Steven Rostedt escreveu:
> > > Bah, I now get warnings that sys_nerr and sys_errlist are deprecated.
> > > 
> > > OK, so going back to just using the racy strerror() should be good
> > > enough, as this incompatibility with strerror_r() is a disaster!  
> > 
> > I've been there, done that... ;-) Check:
> > 
> > tools/lib/str_error_r.c
> > tools/lib/bpf/str_error.c
> > 
> > The trick: have this function in a separate file, so that _GNU_SOURCE
> > doesn't get in the way...
> > 
> 
> Yep, I've been looking at these. I'll need to add yet another version,
> so that we can have it for the external libtraceevent. I'll be sending
> out a patch shortly.

Unfortunately, yes, due to licensing and because we don't have a
liblinux with the things in tools/lib/*.c, we need to relicense that as
at least LGPL 2.1 :-\

Lets start here, whoever reads this message, would you have a problem
with relicensing what is in tools/lib/*.c and tools/lib/api/ as LGPL
2.1?

- Arnaldo