linux-kernel - Re: [RFC v1 1/2] um: drivers: remove support for UML_NET

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]

Date:   Fri, 6 Dec 2019 17:21:08 -0800
From:   Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>
To:     Anton Ivanov <anton.ivanov@...bridgegreys.com>
Cc:     Jeff Dike <jdike@...toit.com>, Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
        David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>, linux-um@...ts.infradead.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        johannes.berg@...el.com
Subject: Re: [RFC v1 1/2] um: drivers: remove support for UML_NET_PCAP

On Fri, Dec 06, 2019 at 04:32:34PM -0800, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 11:23 PM Anton Ivanov
> <anton.ivanov@...bridgegreys.com> wrote:
> [...]
> > 1. There is a proposed patch for the build system to fix it.

So I just tried the patch you linked on the cover letter[1], and I am
still getting the build error described above:

arch/um/drivers/pcap_user.c:35:12: error: conflicting types for ‘pcap_open’
 static int pcap_open(void *data)
            ^~~~~~~~~
In file included from /usr/include/pcap.h:43,
                 from arch/um/drivers/pcap_user.c:7:
/usr/include/pcap/pcap.h:859:18: note: previous declaration of ‘pcap_open’ was here
 PCAP_API pcap_t *pcap_open(const char *source, int snaplen, int flags,

Looking at the patch, I wouldn't expect it to solve this problem.

Are there maybe different conflicting libpcap-dev libraries and I have
the wrong one? Or is this just still broken?

> > 2. We should be removing all old drivers and replacing them with the
> > vector ones.
> 
> Hmm...does this mean you would entertain a patch removing all the
> non-vector UML network drivers? I would be happy to see VDE go as
> well.
> 
> In any event, it sounds like I should probably drop this patch as it
> is currently.
> 
> Thanks!

[1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=938962#79