From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Daniel Kolesa" Subject: Re: [musl] Re: [PATCH] uapi: Prevent redefinition of struct iphdr Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2019 12:13:37 +0100 Message-ID: <66db73b0-c470-4708-a017-c662f4ca0d7c@www.fastmail.com> References: <20191222060227.7089-1-AWilcox@Wilcox-Tech.com> <20191225.163411.1590483851343305623.davem@davemloft.net> <20191226010515.GD30412@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20191225.194929.1465672299217213413.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20191225.194929.1465672299217213413.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org To: David Miller , musl@lists.openwall.com, dalias@libc.org Cc: AWilcox@Wilcox-Tech.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Dec 26, 2019, at 04:49, David Miller wrote: > From: Rich Felker > Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2019 20:05:15 -0500 > > > On Wed, Dec 25, 2019 at 04:34:11PM -0800, David Miller wrote: > >> I find it really strange that this, therefore, only happens for musl > >> and we haven't had thousands of reports of this conflict with glibc > >> over the years. > > > > It's possible that there's software that's including just one of the > > headers conditional on __GLIBC__, and including both otherwise, or > > something like that. Arguably this should be considered unsupported > > usage; there are plenty of headers where that doesn't work and > > shouldn't be expected to. > > I don't buy that, this is waaaaaay too common a header to use. In case of net-tools, only is included, and never directly. Chances are in musl the indirect include tree happens to be different and conflicting, while in glibc it is not. > > Please investigate. > Daniel