public inbox for buildroot@busybox.net
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Waldemar Brodkorb <wbx@openadk.org>
To: Julien Olivain <ju.o@free.fr>
Cc: buildroot@buildroot.org
Subject: Re: [Buildroot] [PATCH] package/uclibc: bump to 1.0.57
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2026 22:40:29 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <aaYDzc8Rh_u-Vb2I@waldemar-brodkorb.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <054ee3804bf26bee3dadf8425e0f723c@free.fr>

Hi Julien,
Julien Olivain wrote,

> Hi Waldemar,
> 
> On 02/03/2026 18:23, Waldemar Brodkorb wrote:
> > Hi Julien,
> > Julien Olivain wrote,
> > 
> > > Hi Waldemar,
> > > 
> > > Thanks for the patch.
> > > 
> > > On 01/03/2026 13:42, Waldemar Brodkorb wrote:
> > > > Following changes made it into the release:
> > > >
> > > > Joris van Rantwijk (1):
> > > >       Fix adjtimex() with TIME64
> > > >
> > > > Waldemar Brodkorb (8):
> > > >       sys/stat.h: remove _STAT_VER/_MKNOD_VER
> > > >       fix gettid() declaration
> > > >       add statx syscall wrapper
> > > 
> > > This new uclibc version is introducing a test failure
> > > with zfs. See:
> > > https://gitlab.com/jolivain/buildroot/-/jobs/13308829775
> > > 
> > > Running with the previous uclibc 1.0.56 works fine:
> > > https://gitlab.com/jolivain/buildroot/-/jobs/13308875027
> > > 
> > > It seems related to commit:
> > > https://github.com/wbx-github/uclibc-ng/commit/d3a819aff25af436e22abd5ba01ff2cfc0631b32
> > > 
> > > Do you have any idea which component should be fixed?
> > > (uclibc, zfs, or the rutime test_xzf?)
> > 
> > It is uclibc-ng fault. A fix and a patch v2 will follow.
> 
> I looked a bit more into this. The statx headers for glibc and uclibc-ng
> are indeed the same:
> 
> https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=blob;f=io/bits/statx-generic.h;h=9bb9701dc67eccad968b338aeb15d87378fe65cd;hb=ea37298b65bd67f94c3c2640e91ec5865a5019ad#l66
> 
> https://github.com/wbx-github/uclibc-ng/blob/v1.0.57/libc/sysdeps/linux/common/bits/statx.h#L88
> 
> On its side, zfs is (re)defining the function slightly
> differently in its test:
> https://github.com/openzfs/zfs/blob/zfs-2.4.1/tests/zfs-tests/cmd/statx.c#L57-L59
> 
> Also, this test does not include the <sys/stat.h> header. It includes
> only <fcntl.h>. In the case this test is compiled with glibc, stat.h
> is never included, so the error does not happen.
> 
> For some reason, in the uclibc-ng case, sys/stat.h gets
> included from fcntl.h, generating the error. See:
> https://gitlab.com/jolivain/buildroot/-/jobs/13308829775#L237
> 
> Maybe the zfs statx test should protect the statx() definition
> with a "#ifndef HAVE_STATX".
> 
> Or could uclibc avoid to include sys/stat.h from fcntl.h,
> when it's not needed?
> 
> What do you think?

Just in this moment I came to the same conclusion. Glibc includes
only <bits/stat.h> since commit f095bb7204d80f609a73a22796edd6cffd4c6add
in 2010. uclibc uses <sys/stat.h> since 2000.

I am actually not sure what can of worms I will open up when
changing it to <bits/stat.h>.

But the zfs test is nevertheless broken, as it always use the
fallback even if glibc provides statx(). We should change it to
check HAVE_STATX as you suggested. And the STATX_MNT_ID check
is also broken, because it is not compile with -D_GNU_SOURCE as
required for a GNU extension.

Can you report it upstream?

In the meanwhile I will sync statx headers in uClibc-ng as they are
heavily outdated. At least this was a good thing to find out.

best regards
 Waldemar

_______________________________________________
buildroot mailing list
buildroot@buildroot.org
https://lists.buildroot.org/mailman/listinfo/buildroot

  reply	other threads:[~2026-03-02 21:40 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-03-01 12:42 [Buildroot] [PATCH] package/uclibc: bump to 1.0.57 Waldemar Brodkorb
2026-03-01 18:53 ` Julien Olivain via buildroot
2026-03-02 15:58   ` Waldemar Brodkorb
2026-03-02 17:23   ` Waldemar Brodkorb
2026-03-02 21:20     ` Julien Olivain via buildroot
2026-03-02 21:40       ` Waldemar Brodkorb [this message]
2026-03-16 21:17 ` Julien Olivain via buildroot
2026-03-27 10:02 ` Thomas Perale via buildroot

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=aaYDzc8Rh_u-Vb2I@waldemar-brodkorb.de \
    --to=wbx@openadk.org \
    --cc=buildroot@buildroot.org \
    --cc=ju.o@free.fr \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox