[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201301172320.19905.vapier@gentoo.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 23:20:17 -0500
From: Mike Frysinger <vapier@...too.org>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: carlos@...temhalted.org, libc-alpha@...rceware.org,
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, schwab@...e.de
Subject: Re: Redefinition of struct in6_addr in <netinet/in.h> and <linux/in6.h>
On Wednesday 16 January 2013 22:15:38 David Miller wrote:
> From: Carlos O'Donell <carlos@...temhalted.org>
> Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 21:15:03 -0500
>
> > +/* If a glibc-based userspace has already included in.h, then we will
> > not + * define in6_addr (nor the defines), sockaddr_in6, or ipv6_mreq.
> > The + * ABI used by the kernel and by glibc match exactly. Neither the
> > kernel + * nor glibc should break this ABI without coordination.
> > + */
> > +#ifndef _NETINET_IN_H
> > +
>
> I think we should shoot for a non-glibc-centric solution.
>
> I can't imagine that other libc's won't have the same exact problem
> with their netinet/in.h conflicting with the kernel's, redefining
> structures like in6_addr, that we'd want to provide a protection
> scheme for here as well.
yes, the kernel's use of __GLIBC__ in exported headers has already caused
problems in the past. fortunately, it's been reduced down to just one case
now (stat.h). let's not balloon it back up.
-mike
Download attachment "signature.asc " of type "application/pgp-signature" (837 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists