On Wed, Mar 8, 2023 at 3:51 PM Jesus Sanchez-Palencia
<jesussanp@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> (+bpf folks, -perf folks)
>
> Please see below.
>
> On Wed, Mar 8, 2023 at 11:28 AM Jesus Sanchez-Palencia
> <jesussanp@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Hi there,
> >
> > So commit 6d0c4b11e743("libbpf: Poison strlcpy()") added the pragma
> > poison directive to libbpf_internal.h to protect against accidental
> > usage of strlcpy. This has broken the build for some toolchains and
> > the problem is that some libcs (e.g. uClibc-ng) provide the strlcpy()
> > declaration from string.h, which leads to a problem with the following
> > include order:
> >
> > string.h,
> > from Iibbpf_common.h:12,
> > from libbpf.h:20,
> > from libbpf_internal.h:26,
> > from strset.c:9:
> >
[..]
> > If we patch libbpf_internal.h and move the #pragma GCC poison
> > directive to after the include list, we fix the problem but at the
> > expense of leaving libbpf.h unprotected (and libbpf_common.h as well,
> > of course).
Seems like a nice compromise? I'm assuming the original intent was to
mostly protect the c files, not the headers. Andrii WDYT?
> >We could duplicate the directive on all these other libbpf
> > headers after the include list, but that's code duplication so I
> > wanted to bring this up here before I send out a patch.
> >
> > Let me know what you think or if you have any other suggestions, please.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Jesus
