Re: Syscall backporting and linux-libc-headers

[Bruce Ashfield <bruce.ashfield@windriver.com>]

On 12-03-22 11:12 AM, Koen Kooi wrote:
>
> Op 22 mrt. 2012, om 15:49 heeft Richard Purdie het volgende geschreven:
>
>> On Thu, 2012-03-22 at 13:22 +0100, Koen Kooi wrote:
>>> In my never ending quest to get consolekit/polkit/etc working properly
>>> I've found that CONFIG_AUDITSYSCALL is really usefull (it's usefull in
>>> other contexts as well, but that's outside the oe-core set of
>>> recipes). It has the following problem:
>>>
>>> config AUDITSYSCALL
>>>         bool "Enable system-call auditing support"
>>>         depends on AUDIT&&  (X86 || PPC || S390 || IA64 || UML ||
>>> SPARC64 || SUPERH)
>>>
>>> No MIPS or ARM support. There recently was a pull request from Al Viro
>>> to get at least ARM support into mainline, but I'm not sure what
>>> happened to that. Anyway, I backported the ARM patch to 3.0 and 3.2,
>>> but to make it usefull I'd need to patch linux-libc-headers and bump
>>> PR on virtual/libc.
>>>
>>> What's the OE-core position on backporting syscalls to
>>> linux-libc-headers?
>>
>> Why can't we just increase the linux-libc-headers version?

Sorry for the slow reply, I missed the original and was wrapped
up in some debugging.

>
> In this case that would be perfectly fine. And bump PR in virtual/libc of course :)

I was just about to do this. Just a day or so ago, I noticed that
the version had lagged (again) and needed to be bumped. I'm all
for this as well, as long as there's a graceful fallback of ENOSYS
there's no real harm to older kernels.

Richard: an to you on this one .. is it too late to do this for
the various stabilization points ?

>
>> Presumably
>> someone running a kernel without the patches won't see any issue, the
>> syscall just won't be present and software will fall back?
>
> Exactly

+1 (I read this after typing my response).

>
>> I think the big concern would be deviating from mainline as its not so
>> much a backport as a divergence at this point (and this is why we can't
>> just upgrade)?
>
> Speaking of divergence, what is the point of having linux-libc-headers-yocto_git.bb ?

Very little. It was originally used to export exactly the headers
as were present in the yocto kernel tree, but Richard and I since
agreed that tgz based libc-headers where faster and good enough.

We can move it to the yocto layers for use by anyone that really needs
this 1:1 mapping of kernel tree to headers in the system.

And a second: .. is it too late to do this for stabilization points ?

Cheers,

Bruce

>
> regards,
>
> Koen