linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] scsi_status_is_good() uses __KERNEL_

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAJgzZooT78F996rW3ax2nVf4S=HWfhqkHjYCkXOEHdK5tf3Y3g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 16 Oct 2023 15:06:30 -0700
From:   enh <enh@...gle.com>
To:     Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scsi_status_is_good() uses __KERNEL__ constants.

On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 1:48 PM Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org> wrote:
>
> On 10/16/23 13:42, enh wrote:
> > Without this missing #ifdef, userspace code trying to use this header
> > directly won't compile. glibc manually removes it, bionic removes it
> > using a script. If we add this, the preprocessor can remove it instead.
>
> Is that the right solution? Shouldn't these software projects be
> modified such that <scsi/scsi.h> is *not* included?

i'm not sure that's practical? all linux libcs i know of include these
headers. (though bionic only has them because glibc did. i'm assuming
the same is true for musl?)

i think there's obviously a question of "why aren't these uapi
headers, if stuff is using them?". just looking at Android, i see
sg3_utils, mtools, compiler-rt (for ioctls), and toybox (for the eject
command).

or perhaps --- even if most of the scsi headers should be non-uapi, is
there a subset of stuff that should be in uapi?

but "libc can use this header directly like it does uapi headers,
rather than having to need a human manually fix the header" seemed
like a step forward from the status quo where everyone's shipping
their own hacked-up versions of these headers?

> Thanks,
>
> Bart.
>