Re: Redefinition of struct in6_addr in <netinet/in.h> and <linux/in6.h>

[Mike Frysinger <vapier at gentoo dot org>]

On Thursday 17 January 2013 23:22:26 Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 11:20 PM, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > On Wednesday 16 January 2013 22:15:38 David Miller wrote:
> >> From: Carlos O'Donell <carlos@systemhalted.org>
> >> Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 21:15:03 -0500
> >> 
> >> > +/* If a glibc-based userspace has already included in.h, then we will
> >> > not + * define in6_addr (nor the defines), sockaddr_in6, or ipv6_mreq.
> >> > The + * ABI used by the kernel and by glibc match exactly. Neither the
> >> > kernel + * nor glibc should break this ABI without coordination.
> >> > + */
> >> > +#ifndef _NETINET_IN_H
> >> > +
> >> 
> >> I think we should shoot for a non-glibc-centric solution.
> >> 
> >> I can't imagine that other libc's won't have the same exact problem
> >> with their netinet/in.h conflicting with the kernel's, redefining
> >> structures like in6_addr, that we'd want to provide a protection
> >> scheme for here as well.
> > 
> > yes, the kernel's use of __GLIBC__ in exported headers has already caused
> > problems in the past.  fortunately, it's been reduced down to just one
> > case now (stat.h).  let's not balloon it back up.
> 
> I also see coda.h has grown a __GLIBC__ usage.

that file is just a pile of cruft :).  it's something that'd be rejected by 
today's kernel standard as it's full of OS shim code.  "#ifdef DOS" ?  comeon!

fortunately, coda is pretty uncommon, so this issue doesn't bite most people, 
and i've never bothered with it.  the same cannot be said of stat.h.
-mike

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.