[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160804222852.6fbec1a6@free-electrons.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2016 22:28:52 +0200
From: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: utmp symbol conflict
Hello,
The shellinabox project
(https://github.com/shellinabox/shellinabox) fails to build with musl
due to the following define in musl's utmp.h:
#define utmp utmpx
Indeed shellinabox/launcher.c has the following piece of code
(https://github.com/shellinabox/shellinabox/blob/master/shellinabox/launcher.c#L1572) :
struct utmpx utmpx = utmp->utmpx;
if (service->useLogin || service->authUser) {
utmpx.ut_type = LOGIN_PROCESS;
memset(utmpx.ut_host, 0, sizeof(utmpx.ut_host));
}
Where "utmp" is of type "struct Utmp *", which is an internal structure
type defined as:
struct Utmp {
const char pid[32];
int pty;
int useLogin;
#ifdef HAVE_UTMPX_H
struct utmpx utmpx;
#endif
};
Unfortunately, with musl's definition #define utmp utmpx, the line:
struct utmpx utmpx = utmp->utmpx;
gets turned after pre-processing to:
struct utmpx utmpx = utmpx->utmpx;
which obviously causes a build failure:
shellinabox/launcher.c: In function ‘childProcess’:
shellinabox/launcher.c:1576:41: error: invalid type argument of ‘->’ (have ‘struct utmpx’)
struct utmpx utmpx = utmp->utmpx;
^
I don't think the symbol "utmp" as a variable name is reserved, so is
the #define utmp utmpx done by musl really a legal thing to do?
Best regards,
Thomas
--
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com
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.
