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

Message-ID: <20250224154007-bb3ab855-7a9d-43ba-851c-054a5c4fe324@linutronix.de>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2025 15:41:54 +0100
From: Thomas Weißschuh <thomas.weissschuh@...utronix.de>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
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 Sat, Feb 22, 2025 at 11:24:26AM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> 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.

Ack.

> 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.

Sounds good, I'll do that for v2.
Given that any nolibc header always also includes the global nolibc.h,
I think limits.h can directly include nolibc.h.
 
> Cheers,
> Willy