Message-ID: <20200529161750.GA196085@google.com>
Date:   Fri, 29 May 2020 12:17:50 -0400
From:   Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Matthew Blecker <matthewb@...gle.com>,
        Jesse Barnes <jsbarnes@...gle.com>,
        Mike Frysinger <vapier@...gle.com>,
        Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>,
        vpillai <vpillai@...italocean.com>, vineethrp@...il.com,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/headers: Fix sched_setattr userspace compilation
 breakage

Hi Linus,

On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 07:17:38PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 6:45 PM Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org> wrote:
> >
> >  glibc's <sched.h> already defines struct sched_param (which is a POSIX
> >  struct), so my inclusion of <linux/sched/types.h> above which is a UAPI
> >  header exported by the kernel, breaks because the following commit moved
> >  sched_param into the UAPI:
> >  e2d1e2aec572a ("sched/headers: Move various ABI definitions to <uapi/linux/sched/types.h>")
> >
> >  Simply reverting that part of the patch also fixes it, like below. Would
> >  that be an acceptable fix? Then I can go patch glibc to get struct
> >  sched_attr by including the UAPI's <linux/sched/types.h>. Otherwise, I
> >  suspect glibc will also break if it tried to include the UAPI header.
> 
> Hmm.
> 
> Reverting that commit makes some sense as a "it broke things", and
> yes, if this was some recent change that caused problems with user
> headers, that would be what we should do (at least to then think about
> it a bit more).
> 
> But that commit was done three years ago and you're the first person
> to report breakage.
> 
> So for all I know, modern glibc source bases have already fixed
> themselves up, and take advantage of the new UAPI location. Or they
> just did that kernel header sync many years ago, and will fix it up
> the next time they do a header sync.
> 
> So then reverting things (or adding the __KERNEL__ guard) would only
> break _those_ cases instead and make for only more problems.
> 
> Basically, I think you should treat this as a glibc header bug, not a
> kernel header bug.

Got it, thanks.

> And when you say

> > The reason is, since <sched.h> did not provide struct sched_attr as the
> > manpage said, so I did the include of uapi's linux/sched/types.h myself:
> 
> instead of starting to include the kernel uapi header files - that
> interact at a deep level with those system header files - you should
> just treat it as a glibc bug.
> 
> And then you can either work around it locally, or make a glibc
> bug-report and hope it gets fixed that way.
> 
> The "work around it locally" might be something like a
> "glibc-sched-h-fixup.h" header file that does
> 
>   #ifndef SCHED_FIXUP_H
>   #define SCHED_FIXUP_H
>   #include <sched.h>
> 
>   /* This is documented to come from <sched.h>, but doesn't */
>   struct sched_attr {
>         __u32 size;
> 
>         __u32 sched_policy;
>         __u64 sched_flags;
> 
>         /* SCHED_NORMAL, SCHED_BATCH */
>         __s32 sched_nice;
> 
>         /* SCHED_FIFO, SCHED_RR */
>         __u32 sched_priority;
> 
>         /* SCHED_DEADLINE */
>         __u64 sched_runtime;
>         __u64 sched_deadline;
>         __u64 sched_period;
> 
>         /* Utilization hints */
>         __u32 sched_util_min;
>         __u32 sched_util_max;
> 
>   };
>   #end /* SCHED_FIXUP_H */
> 
> in your build environment (possibly with configure magic etc to find
> the need for this fixup, depending on how fancy you want to be).

Got it, I will look into these options. Thanks.

Turns out I hit the same/similar issue in 2018 but for a different reason. At
the time I was working on Android and needed this struct. The bionic C
library folks refused to add it because no other libc exposed it either (that
was their reason to not have it, anyway). I suspect everyone was just doing
their own fixups to use it and that was what I was asked to do.

I think it would be better to just do the fixup you suggested above for now.

> Because when we have a change that is three+ years old, we can't
> reasonably change the kernel back again without then likely just
> breaking some other case that depends on that uapi file that has been
> there for the last few years.
> 
> glibc and the kernel aren't developed in sync, so glibc generally
> takes a snapshot of the kernel headers and then works with that. That
> allows glibc developers to work around any issues they have with our
> uapi headers (we've had lots of namespace issues, for example), but it
> also means that the system headers aren't using some "generic kernel
> UAPI headers". They are using a very _particular_ set of kernel uapi
> headers from (likely) several years ago, and quite possibly then
> further edited too.
> 
> Which is why you can't then mix glibc system headers that are years
> old with kernel headers that are modern (or vice versa).
> 
> Well, with extreme luck and/or care you can. But not in general.

Got it, thank you Linus !!!

 - Joel

Powered by blists - more mailing lists