linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] tools/nolibc: Add stdbool.h to nolibc includes

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: <7f2d214d-ebc3-4c9d-b2bd-4ad94719e6f6@weissschuh.net>
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2025 16:48:50 +0200 (GMT+02:00)
From: Thomas Weißschuh <linux@...ssschuh.net>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc: André Almeida <andrealmeid@...lia.com>,
	Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, kernel-dev@...lia.com,
	Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tools/nolibc: Add stdbool.h to nolibc includes

Sep 25, 2025 16:45:19 Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>:

> On Thu, Sep 25, 2025 at 11:37:39AM -0300, André Almeida wrote:
>> Em 25/09/2025 11:24, Mark Brown escreveu:
>
>>> It's not 100% clear to me that we should add this to the nolibc
>>> includes given that nolibc itself does not rely on or offer stdbool -
>>> I was going to send something out adjusting kselftest.h to unguard the
>>> include there.
>>
>> If we don't include stdbool.h here, it looks like
>> tools/include/nolibc/stdbool.h cannot be used by any test, and unguarding
>> <stdbool.h> would defeat the purpose of using -nolibc?
>
> Huh, I'd not seen that - generally stdbool.h comes from the compiler
> rather than libc so it didn't occur to me that nolibc would provide one.
> Looking at the compilers I have installed they all seem to be doing
> essentially the same thing (with some C++ handling).

-nostdinc also prevents the compiler from using its own headers, so we decided to have our own variant in nolibc.

(The same holds true for stdarg.h IIRC)

>> I'm also not 100% sure as well, lets see if Thomas or Willy can shine a
>> light here.
>
> Yeah, if we've got the nolibc one I guess we should use it in which case
> your patch is I guess what's expected.  I'll send out my version once my
> tests finish just in case.

Thanks!