This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH] Linux: Deprecate <sys/sysctl.h> and sysctl


* Adhemerval Zanella:

> On 07/06/2019 09:01, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> Now that there are no internal users of __sysctl left, it is possible
>> to add an unconditional deprecation warning to <sys/sysctl.h>.
>> 
>> To avoid a test failure due this warning in check-install-headers,
>> skip the test for sys/sysctl.h.
>
> LGTM.  As a side note, if I recall correctly one usage of sysctl that might
> be useful and not really available depending of the kernel version is to
> get some random bits from /proc/sys/kernel/random/uuid without opening
> /proc.

Right, I saw this quite a lot in existing code (although some people use
the FreeBSD MIB on Linux, which will always fail and never provide a UUID).

>> +#warning "The <sys/sysctl.h> header is deprecated and will be removed."
>> +#warning "Directly access the /proc file system instead."

Should I add this as well?

#warning "On current kernels, getentropy provides random bits without /proc."

>> diff --git a/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/sysctl.c b/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/sysctl.c
>> index 33afdd918b..0f18c69abe 100644
>> --- a/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/sysctl.c
>> +++ b/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/sysctl.c
>> @@ -17,8 +17,7 @@
>>     <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.  */
>>  
>>  #include <errno.h>
>> -#include <string.h>	/* For the real memset prototype.  */
>> -#include <sys/sysctl.h>
>> +#include <linux/sysctl.h>
>>  
>>  #include <sysdep.h>
>>  #include <sys/syscall.h>
>> @@ -39,5 +38,4 @@ __sysctl (int *name, int nlen, void *oldval, size_t *oldlenp,
>>  
>>    return INLINE_SYSCALL (_sysctl, 1, &args);
>>  }
>> -libc_hidden_def (__sysctl)
>>  weak_alias (__sysctl, sysctl)
>> 
>
> What about a link warning stating this interface is deprecated and it would be
> removed? My idea is to warn when people are static linking as well.

They already get two warnings (from the header and the call site).  Do
we need a third warning?  It's only helpful if you don't use the header,
I think, but even with Go's cgo, you'll see the GCC warnings.

Thanks,
Florian


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]