Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 16:16:30 +0200
From: Ruben Winistörfer <>
Subject: Re: Re: musl and kernel headers [was Re: system-images 1.4.2:
 od is broken; bzip2 is missing]

I just have modified the Alpine Linux kernel header patches to use them 
with the 4.2.3 version.
(Not sure if that is a good idea, but why not try it...)

So I am wondering right now, if they haven't solved the problem already 
you're discussing about.

There is a patch for libc-compat.h...

Maybe it helps, otherwise ignore my "interruption". ;-)


Denys Vlasenko schrieb:
> On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 9:46 PM, Rich Felker<>  wrote:
>>> Looking at kernel's libc-compat.h, it looks like you can get away
>>> with using __UAPI_DEF_foo's like this?
>>> #if  defined(__UAPI_DEF_SOCKADDR_IN)&&  __UAPI_DEF_SOCKADDR_IN == 1
>>> /* kernel already defined the struct, do nothing */
>>> #else
>>> struct sockaddr_in {
>>>          ...
>>> };
>> This would address the case where the kernel header is included first,
>> but it's not a case I or most of the musl community wants to support,
>> because there's no guarantee that the kernel's definitions of these
>> structures will actually be compatible with use elsewhere in the libc
>> headers, etc.
> If kernel's definition does not match yours, there is a much
> bigger problem than "includes do not compile":
> kernel and userspace definitions of these structs *must* match
> (modulo harmless things like different typedef names for field types).
> So in this case either kernel or libc would need to be fixed.
>> The other direction, suppressing kernel headers' definition of the
>> structs, is what we want to work, but they've restricted their logic
>> for that to only work when __GLIBC__ is defined. :(
> Yes, you will have to do by hand the thing which kernel
> automagically does for glibc - namely, define to 0:
>>> /* tell kernel to not define the struct */
>>> #define __UAPI_DEF_SOCKADDR_IN 0
>>> #endif
>> We could do something like this but then we would need to keep up with
>> the list of all the __UAPI defines we need to suppress unwanted kernel
>> definitions.
> Looking at libc-compat.h, this list is at the moment only about
> 13 defines long:
> #define __UAPI_DEF_IN_ADDR              0
> #define __UAPI_DEF_IN_IPPROTO           0
> #define __UAPI_DEF_IN_PKTINFO           0
> #define __UAPI_DEF_IP_MREQ              0
> #define __UAPI_DEF_SOCKADDR_IN          0
> #define __UAPI_DEF_IN_CLASS             0
> #define __UAPI_DEF_IN6_ADDR             0
> #define __UAPI_DEF_SOCKADDR_IN6         0
> #define __UAPI_DEF_IPV6_MREQ            0
> #define __UAPI_DEF_IPPROTO_V6           0
> #define __UAPI_DEF_IPV6_OPTIONS         0
> #define __UAPI_DEF_IN6_PKTINFO          0
> #define __UAPI_DEF_IP6_MTUINFO          0
>> What if we could get the kernel to change the #if defined(__GLIBC__)
>> to #if defined(__GLIBC__) || defined(__UAPI_DONTNEED_DEFS) or similar,
>> so that there would only be one macro we need to define, and the
>> kernel would then use the same logic it uses with glibc to suppress
>> all of these.
> Or ask kernel to remove "define to 0" glibc hack and ask glibc to
> do its own job. Why one libc should have preferential treatment?
> Or ask kernel to stop using structures with userspace names.
> This should not be that hard:
> struct __kernel_sockaddr_in {...}
> #if __KERNEL__
> # define sockaddr_in __kernel_sockaddr_in
> #endif

Content of type "text/html" skipped

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.