linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 13/16] selftests: vDSO: parse

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: <20250222102426.GA13708@1wt.eu>
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2025 11:24:26 +0100
From: Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
To: Thomas Weißschuh <thomas.weissschuh@...utronix.de>
Cc: Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>, Eric Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        Bill Wendling <morbo@...gle.com>,
        Justin Stitt <justinstitt@...gle.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@....com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
        llvm@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/16] selftests: vDSO: parse_vdso: Make compatible with
 nolibc

On Mon, Feb 03, 2025 at 10:05:14AM +0100, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> nolibc does not provide this header, instead its definitions are
> available unconditionally.

Please think about reminding which one you're talking about so that a
simple "git log" shows what header you're talking about (limits.h)
without requiring to also see the patch itself.

BTW, I think that limits.h is common enough that we could probably
provide it as well with nolibc to ease porting (and the current patch
is a good example of this). Maybe it could simply start by including
stdint.h to provide the various limits we rely on. I remember that in
the early days of nolibc-test we had to exclude it as well for nolibc.

What do you think? The less we need to patch programs to insert #ifndef
NOLIBC, the better.

Cheers,
Willy