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]
Date:   Fri, 07 Jun 2019 06:28:09 +0200
From:   Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>
To:     Joseph Myers <joseph@...esourcery.com>
Cc:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>,
        Paul Burton <pburton@...ecomp.com>,
        Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@...il.com>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] uapi: avoid namespace conflict in linux/posix_types.h

* Joseph Myers:

> What happened with this patch (posted 19 March)?  I found today that we 
> can't use Linux 5.1 headers in glibc testing because the namespace issues 
> are still present in the headers as of the release.

This regression fix still hasn't been merged into Linus' tree.  What is
going on here?

This might seem rather minor, but the namespace testing is actually
relevant in practice.  It prevents accidental clashes with C/C++
identifiers in user code.

If this fairly central UAPI header is not made namespace-clean again,
then we need to duplicate information from more UAPI headers in glibc,
and I don't think that's something we'd want to do.

Thanks,
Florian

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ