Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2015 04:33:12 +0100
From: Peter Smith <>
Subject: Re: Patching kernel headers?

On 2015-03-11 17:14, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> * Peter Smith <> [2015-03-11 16:33:54 +0100]:
>> I have built a toolchain with GCC 4.7.3, musl 1.1.6 and Linux 3.12 
>> kernel
>> headers. I then tried to compile Busybox 1.23.1 without patching the
>> toolchain kernel headers, as described here:
>> and the build was 
>> still
>> successful.
>> Does this mean that patching the kernel headers is no longer 
>> necessary?
> did you use an allyes busybox config?
> only some of the tools use conflicting headers
> (some kernel headers are incompatible with libc headers
> busybox might got fixed not to include those but other
> code may still need the patched kernel headers)

I have now investigated further, and both the current and previous 
version of Busybox will build without patching the kernel headers, when 
using my custom Busybox config. If I try to build Busybox with an allyes 
config it will fail. Nothing has changed, I have just found out that my 
specific Busybox config will work without patching the kernel headers.

Are there any reasons for me to patch the kernel headers now that I 
found out Busybox will build anyway? Could other applications require 
the headers to be patched?

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.