linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] perf test workload noploop: Name the noploop process

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: <CAP-5=fXms87LVH-Y5V3OpVbwUjY=hWAe0NTX4uKQf1q3Ax-WSA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2025 11:05:41 -0700
From: Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>
To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
Cc: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>, 
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, 
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, 
	Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, 
	Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>, Kan Liang <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] perf test workload noploop: Name the noploop process

On Mon, Jun 23, 2025 at 10:45 AM Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
<acme@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 23, 2025 at 08:12:47AM -0700, Ian Rogers wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 12:36 PM Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org> wrote:
> > > I'm afraid it'd introduce a build failure on musl.  Please see
>
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-perf-users/20250611092542.F4ooE2FL@linutronix.de/
>
> > > I think <sys/prctl.h> would be enough.
>
> > we could do that but in the glibc man page it says:
> > https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/prctl.2.html
> > ```
> > #include <linux/prctl.h>  /* Definition of PR_* constants */
> > #include <sys/prctl.h>
> > ```
>
> > It'd be nice to think musl was slowly getting fixed. I notice we're
>
> Sebastian reported on the musl libc, its maintainer replied:
>
> https://www.openwall.com/lists/musl/2025/06/12/11

Ugh. I'm not sure how we're expected to resolve this and have glibc
and musl be happy without basically not trusting libc.

Thanks,
Ian