netdev - Re: Redefinition of struct in6_addr in <netinet/in.h> and <linux/in6.h>

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: <20130116.210512.2230612692562212911.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Wed, 16 Jan 2013 21:05:12 -0500 (EST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	carlos@...temhalted.org
Cc:	bhutchings@...arflare.com, yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org,
	amwang@...hat.com, tmb@...eia.org, eblake@...hat.com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	libvirt-list@...hat.com, tgraf@...g.ch, libc-alpha@...rceware.org,
	schwab@...e.de
Subject: Re: Redefinition of struct in6_addr in <netinet/in.h> and
 <linux/in6.h>

From: Carlos O'Donell <carlos@...temhalted.org>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 20:58:47 -0500

> So I just went down the rabbit hole, and the further I get the
> closer I get to having two exact copies of the same definitions
> in both glibc and the kernel and using whichever one was included
> first.
> 
> Is anyone opposed to that kind of solution?

Sounds interesting, please share :-)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html