Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2017 12:29:53 -0500
From: Carlos O'Donell <>
To: Rich Felker <>
Cc:, "David S. Miller" <>,,
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH resent] uapi libc compat: allow non-glibc to
 opt out of uapi definitions

On 03/08/2017 11:25 AM, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 10:53:00AM -0500, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>> On 11/11/2016 07:08 AM, Felix Janda wrote:
>>> Currently, libc-compat.h detects inclusion of specific glibc headers,
>>> and defines corresponding _UAPI_DEF_* macros, which in turn are used in
>>> uapi headers to prevent definition of conflicting structures/constants.
>>> There is no such detection for other c libraries, for them the
>>> _UAPI_DEF_* macros are always defined as 1, and so none of the possibly
>>> conflicting definitions are suppressed.
>>> This patch enables non-glibc c libraries to request the suppression of
>>> any specific interface by defining the corresponding _UAPI_DEF_* macro
>>> as 0.
>>> This patch together with the recent musl libc commit
>> Would it be possible to amend the musl patch to define the macros to 1.
> I don't follow. They're defined to 0 explicitly to tell the kernel
> headers not to define their own versions of these structs, etc. since
> they would clash. Defining to 1 would have the opposite meaning.

My apologies, I must have misread the original musl patch.

Defining them to a known value is exactly what I was looking for.

The other outstanding questions remain.


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.