linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] tools/nolibc: remove LINUX_REBOOT

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: <ZFCubzgPxBSDiTwq@1wt.eu>
Date:   Tue, 2 May 2023 08:32:15 +0200
From:   Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
To:     Thomas Weißschuh <linux@...ssschuh.net>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tools/nolibc: remove LINUX_REBOOT_ constants

Hi Thomas,

On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 05:52:11PM +0200, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> The same constants and some more have been exposed to userspace via
> linux/reboot.h for a long time.
> 
> To avoid conflicts and trim down nolibc a bit drop the custom
> definitions.

For me it breaks the build when including nolibc directly, so most
likely we need to include certain files:

  In file included from /g/public/linux/master/tools/include/nolibc/nolibc.h:99,
                   from <command-line>:
  /g/public/linux/master/tools/include/nolibc/sys.h: In function 'reboot':
  /g/public/linux/master/tools/include/nolibc/sys.h:972:30: error: 'LINUX_REBOOT_MAGIC1' undeclared (first use in this function)
    972 |         int ret = sys_reboot(LINUX_REBOOT_MAGIC1, LINUX_REBOOT_MAGIC2, cmd, 0);
        |                              ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  /g/public/linux/master/tools/include/nolibc/sys.h:972:30: note: each undeclared identifier is reported only once for each function it appears in

I suspect it might be like the S_* macros for stat() that we had to
guard against. What build conflict did you meet ? I would like as well
to redefine the least possible and if we can make sure to fix the
conflict efficiently without breaking code, that would be better.

Thanks,
Willy