linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next] net: uapi: Provide an UAPI definition of 'struct sockaddr'

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: <20260106112714-d47c16e0-0020-4851-9c2a-f8849c9a0677@linutronix.de>
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2026 11:32:52 +0100
From: Thomas Weißschuh <thomas.weissschuh@...utronix.de>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, 
	Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, 
	Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-api@...r.kernel.org, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: uapi: Provide an UAPI definition of
 'struct sockaddr'

Hi Jakub,

On Mon, Jan 05, 2026 at 09:57:13AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Jan 2026 09:25:55 +0100 Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> > Various UAPI headers reference 'struct sockaddr'. Currently the
> > definition of this struct is pulled in from the libc header
> > sys/socket.h. This is problematic as it introduces a dependency
> > on a full userspace toolchain.
> > 
> > Instead expose a custom but compatible definition of 'struct sockaddr'
> > in the UAPI headers. It is guarded by the libc compatibility
> > infrastructure to avoid potential conflicts.
> > 
> > The compatibility symbol won't be supported by glibc right away,
> > but right now __UAPI_DEF_IF_IFNAMSIZ is not supported either,
> > so including the libc headers before the UAPI headers is broken anyways.
> 
> I did not look too closely but this seems to break build of selftests
> in netdev and BPF CI (netdev on AWS Linux, not sure what base BPF uses)

Thanks for the report.

I found the reported CI failures in BPF CI and will work on those.

As for the failure in netdev CI however I am not so sure.
Looking at net-next-2026-01-05--12-00, the only failures triggered by my
change are also the ones from the bpf-ci. Are these the ones you meant,
or am I missing some others?


Thomas