linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] tools/nolibc: Add Linux specific waitpid() flags

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: <fc236f5a-8763-417f-8e9b-57da15d5dea3@sirena.org.uk>
Date:   Mon, 23 Oct 2023 14:20:13 +0100
From:   Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:     Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
Cc:     Thomas Weißschuh <thomas@...ch.de>,
        Thomas Weißschuh <linux@...ssschuh.net>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tools/nolibc: Add Linux specific waitpid() flags

On Sat, Oct 21, 2023 at 11:13:38AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 21, 2023 at 11:00:20AM +0200, Thomas Weißschuh  wrote:
> > Oct 20, 2023 23:57:01 Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>:

> > > Linux defines a few custom flags for waitpid(), make them available to
> > > nolibc based programs.

> > Wouldn't it be easier to include linux/wait.h instead?

> That's indeed the trend we should follow whenever possible. We've got
> caught a few times in the past with build errors depending on the
> includes ordering due to such redefinitions. I don't know if that's the
> case for these ones (nor if including linux/wait.h would cause other
> breakage) but it's worth considering at least.

> The difficulty here is that originally nolibc did not *explicitly* depend
> on UAPI headers, and was supposed to be self-sufficient (that was the
> main point). Adapting to multiple archs caused the addition of ifdefs
> all around, then trying to standardize the include file names instead
> of just "nolibc.h" caused conflicts with programs already including
> linux/anything.h. Anyway now we depend on linux/lots-of-stuff so I
> think it's worth continuing in that direction so that we don't replicate
> the UAPI maintenance effort.

OK, I'll do that - I'd not noticed that nolibc had started pulling in
linux/ headers so was trying to maintain the deliberate duplication.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)