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
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2016 02:02:21 +0200 From: Phil Sutter <phil@....cc> To: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, Stephen Hemminger <shemming@...cade.com>, David Ahern <dsa@...ulusnetworks.com> Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com>, "julien.floret@...nd.com" <julien.floret@...nd.com> Subject: Re: [iproute PATCH 1/3] Use C99 style initializers everywhere Hi, [Replying to multiple mails at once due to laziness.] On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 06:09:20PM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > Hmm, seems like a lot of stuff ... It is. At some point I thought about maybe hack something in cocci instead, but that would probably have taken longer given the code diversity. :/ I know this is crap to review, but splitting it up into a 100 patches doesn't make much sense, either. > Please have a look at commit 8f80d450c3cb ("tc: fix compilation with old gcc (< 4.6)") ... > > Your changes effectively revert them again. Here, and some other parts of the bpf frontend > code bits. Oh, good catch! Thanks a lot for pointing this out. It definitely needs to be sorted prior to applying my mess. On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 11:57:53AM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > It makes sense that if you can build a kernel with old toolchain, that > iproute2 needs to be buildable as well. > > The current kernels are documented to require 3.2 or later. So in your opinion we should stay compatible to gcc-3.2? Clarifying requirements like this one would make sense in order to know what to check against. On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 02:47:51PM -0600, David Ahern wrote: > On 6/17/16 2:36 PM, Daniel Borkmann wrote: [...] > > I just pointed to the fact that this would basically undo their changes > > that they've submitted some time ago to the BPF frontend, reintroducing > > the issue for them. Unfortunately, the anonymous struct cannot be named > > due to uapi reasons. It should have been named from the very beginning, > > but unfortunately too late now. So I would suggest to just leave those > > affected parts as is. > > I was referring to Phil's patch. All of the struct {} req; > initializations should be fine if you name the structs, but then need to > run it through whatever compiler version the 6wind folks care about to > verify that is true. I'm not so sure about that. What I did regarding the anonymous struct req is not new in iproute2 code base: There is the GENL_REQUEST macro which expands to an identical construct and it's there since end of 2012. Commit 8f80d450c3cb changes only the initializers of union bpf_attr, so maybe the problem is limited to anonymous structs in unions? Anyway, I guess defining which minimum gcc version to depend on and testing against it is the only real solution here. Thanks, Phil
Powered by blists - more mailing lists