From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25410 invoked by alias); 20 Jul 2017 07:38:12 -0000 Mailing-List: contact libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libc-alpha-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 25378 invoked by uid 89); 20 Jul 2017 07:38:11 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy= X-HELO: mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] S390: Sync ptrace.h with kernel. [BZ #21539] To: libc-alpha@sourceware.org References: <20170613200522.GA14306@altlinux.org> <20170718102039.GA20971@altlinux.org> <25569a51-e43c-9697-78e3-c319c9048763@redhat.com> <20170718133950.GA23830@altlinux.org> From: Stefan Liebler Cc: "Carlos O'Donell" , ldv@altlinux.org, Siddhesh Poyarekar Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2017 07:38:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 17072007-0016-0000-0000-000004D87598 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 17072007-0017-0000-0000-0000280D997A Message-Id: <85a36444-ca8b-5621-11f3-25c4083f0f92@linux.vnet.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:,, definitions=2017-07-20_04:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=1 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1706020000 definitions=main-1707200123 X-SW-Source: 2017-07/txt/msg00723.txt.bz2 On 07/18/2017 04:11 PM, Carlos O'Donell wrote: > On 07/18/2017 09:39 AM, Dmitry V. Levin wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 09:31:49AM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote: >>> On 07/18/2017 06:20 AM, Dmitry V. Levin wrote: >>>> Mark Wielaard has spotted [1] a regression that I missed during review. >>>> After this change, this test case fails to compile with the following >>>> diagnostics: >>>> >>>> $ gcc -c -xc -o/dev/null - <<'EOF' >>>> #include >>>> #include >>>> EOF >>> >>> This is a linux/glibc header coordination issue. >> >> Not really, this is a new issue since glibc-2.25. > > It is both a new issue and a header coordination issue, the two are not > mutually exclusive. > >>> https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Synchronizing_Headers >> >> This project doesn't appear to be alive, unfortunately. > > The project is alive. We are the project. We need to send patches upstream > to the Linux kernel to keep fixing inclusion ordering issues where we need > them fixed. > > When 2.27 opens I have a pile of header inclusion ordering fixes I want to > propose along with tests for them, but I haven't had a chance to submit. So > we can discuss this in a few weeks. > >>>> The following change fixes this and similar compilation issues that arise >>>> when sys/ptrace.h is included after linux/ptrace.h: >>> >>> This is a known conflict, and needs to be fixed properly using libc-compat.h >>> on the kernel side and the appropriate defines on the glibc side. >> >> No, there was no conflict between asm/ptrace.h and sys/ptrace.h on s390 >> in glibc-2.25, and we should avoid introducing new conflicts. > > I have not verified that inclusion worked on both orders, if it did, then > this is indeed a regression. Before my commit "S390: Sync ptrace.h with kernel. [BZ #21539]", both orders compiled without a failure: #include #include => okay (but fails after my commit) #include #include => okay However if somebody used linux/ptrace.h instead of asm/ptrace.h: #include #include => fail #include #include => okay With Dimitry's patch, all four cases are okay. > > However, I would like to take a step back: > > * Why is this issue a blocker? What software does it stop from building? > > * Can we delay the fix until after the release and fix it properly? > > Mark, Is this a problem for Valgrind? > Carlos, shall we commit Dimitry's patch before the release? Then we don't have this regression compared to glibc 2.25 release. Bye. Stefan