From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_EF,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from sourceware.org (server1.sourceware.org [209.132.180.131]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8CE681F453 for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2019 17:25:29 +0000 (UTC) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post :list-help:sender:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=default; b=fe1I833ofLQiVnwE uBI+cy0I6ufubAiQYCvusxqJRamJk3GAlAYyKD8WryNmB/PQuIij/X9sWs1Ls9bS tYTUgW6YKAntkUhMH5nrNuQ9xXmU43UAppyfRuyKv+vHVgjLnynR9YIkrtq8EsuT nMFnSBZYXk1diiZLUCCRw44R8qs= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post :list-help:sender:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; s=default; bh=D1e/+w20mzUYF47wfw198Q OAHVI=; b=xzEyAIu8+VMrRKTSrfNZnCUO2K32PxcAAhJbTBIhS9k1YjTnREypVQ Jve4icRDQypJFwtVcES/pI+eS1Hjn579LC/pAwEVi0ZH+ZVNvcsvhMF7fkalzwDg 4ewBHsbToQtNgMB4AkHC+cqkWLg+MafkuK0xdTi9e6WFMRNDeDTnQ= Received: (qmail 100996 invoked by alias); 23 Jan 2019 17:24:48 -0000 Mailing-List: contact libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libc-alpha-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 100683 invoked by uid 89); 23 Jan 2019 17:24:46 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-HELO: mail-qt1-f194.google.com Subject: Re: misc/check-installed-headers-c failing due to upstream kernel change To: Vineet Gupta , Ben Hutchings , libc-alpha@sourceware.org Cc: arcml , Feng Tang , Steven Rostedt , Andrew Morton References: <4db851ae-9bb2-2159-96bf-c4b34b505bd9@synopsys.com> <1548259069.3229.308.camel@codethink.co.uk> <26167c76-7d83-40e9-49d3-1c38b6ae3f8a@redhat.com> From: Carlos O'Donell Openpgp: preference=signencrypt Message-ID: <00b639e3-c96f-d75e-ed49-3c6ebe274228@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2019 12:24:41 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 1/23/19 12:13 PM, Vineet Gupta wrote: > On 1/23/19 8:51 AM, Carlos O'Donell wrote: >> On 1/23/19 10:57 AM, Ben Hutchings wrote: >>> On Mon, 2019-01-21 at 14:56 -0800, Vineet Gupta wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> It seems a recent upstream kernel change (went in 5.0-rcX) 81c9d43f9487 >>>> ("kernel/sysctl: add panic_print into sysctl") trips one of the glibc tests. >>>> >>>> FAIL: misc/check-installed-headers-c >>>> >>>>> :: sys/sysctl.h >>>>> :::: >>>>> *** Obsolete types detected: >>>>> ~/install/compilers/arc-linux-gnu/sysroot/usr/include/linux /sysctl.h: >>>>> KERN_PANIC_PRINT=78, /* ulong: bitmask to print system info on panic */ >>>> >>>> It doesn't seem to like ulong (inside a comment). I don't have enough foo to fix >>>> it, but wanted to bring it to notice anyways. >>> >>> This additions looks like a mistake, anyway - Linux's binary sysctl >>> interface is only there for ancient compatibility and no new sysctls >>> should be added to this enumeration. >> >> Just to be clear, this glibc test failure is a false positive [1], and >> we're working to correct this [2]. However, if this is also not needed on >> the kernel side, then that's also OK with us :-) >> > > [1] https://www.sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2019-01/msg00413.html > [2] https://www.sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2019-01/msg00513.html > > Great, I didn't skim thru the mailing list before posting this. So this is already > known and being worked on ! > > Does it make sense to add the minimal fix for 2.29 ? It is likely in near future, > people using the released glibc with newer kernel will run into this, unless > kernel folks zap this quickly, within the current release. I don't think there is any rush. Review [2] and give Zack any feedback on correctness? We commit to master, and backport to the release branch for 2.29 when ready. Developers should be using the release branches. Distributions already use the release branches to get continued security fixes and bug fixes. -- Cheers, Carlos.