linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 03/11] tools/nolibc/stdio: remove perror if NOLIBC_IGNORE

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: <20250921182824.GA28610@1wt.eu>
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2025 20:28:24 +0200
From: Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
To: Thomas Weißschuh <linux@...ssschuh.net>
Cc: Benjamin Berg <benjamin@...solutions.net>, linux-um@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 03/11] tools/nolibc/stdio: remove perror if
 NOLIBC_IGNORE_ERRNO is set

On Sun, Sep 21, 2025 at 08:26:35PM +0200, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> > I'm totally fine with saying that errno shouldn't be defined when building
> > without errno, but all functions must continue to be defined. perror() is
> > used to print an error message, it's a valid use case just as printf() and
> > should remain.
> > 
> > If we disable perror for this, then we must also disable usage of printf
> > for consistency (and I don't want this either).
> 
> Then let's also fix printf(). Benjamin, do you want to add this to your
> series? It should be consitent with the perror() fallback.

Yes that would be great given that the series focuses on fixing errno
usage.

Thanks,
Willy