On 09/21/2016 01:34 PM, Etienne Champetier wrote:
> Hi Florian,
> 2016-09-18 21:36 GMT+02:00 Florian Fainelli <f.faine...@gmail.com>:
>> Le 18/09/2016 à 12:06, Etienne Champetier a écrit :
>>> (Answering from my phone with gmail so this email is in HTML and will
>>> get bounced by the ML)
>>> Le 18 sept. 2016 14:03, "John Crispin" <j...@phrozen.org
>>> <mailto:j...@phrozen.org>> a écrit :
>>>> On 18/09/2016 02:13, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>>>>> Le 17/09/2016 à 16:49, Etienne Champetier a écrit :
>>>>>> Hi Florian,
>>>>>> What is your use case?
>>>>> Pre-built toolchain which ships with kernel headers 3.8 at the moment.
>>>>>> If you run it on kernel less than 3.17 this will then fail at run
>>> time ...
>>>>> I run a kernel newer than 3.17, but that's a good point.
>>>>>> I would prefer to not compile it instead of having an unusable binary
>>>>> Ok, so something more like that:
>>> I still doesn't understand why getrandom isn't built with target kernel
>>> headers
>>> All LEDE targets are using linux 4.4 and OpenWRT targets are 3.18+, so
>>> this feels like the wrong fix for me
>> I am using an external toolchain which ships with kernel headers 3.8,
>> and anybody building an external toolchain in OpenWrt may run into a
>> similar problem.
>> Irrespective of the kernel version, since the system call is not present
>> in all kernel versions, testing for its presence does not hurt.
> Checking for it's presence doesn't hurt, but silently failing (not
> compiling) does.
> Without a fallback in /sbin/urandom_seed, you now have a run-time failure ...
> https://git.lede-project.org/?p=source.git;a=blob;f=package/base-files/files/sbin/urandom_seed;hb=HEAD
> There is no good fallback, ie you can't emulate getrandom() (that is
> why i introduced this helper in the first place)
> If you are using a kernel newer than 3.17, but your toolchain is
> shipping with  kernel header 3.8, may I suggest just patching this
> toolchain? (Or using your V1 in your local fork)

Not an option at the moment, however, checking at runtime if the kernel
is greater than 3.17 and providing the definition of the system call
number (278) might be an option in that case, that seems most likely
like a local patch though, not suitable for upstream ubox.

>> Besides that, people may end up backporting a newer user-space to run
>> with an older kernel that is pre 3.17, making things robust and testing
>> for what you use in your application is a good practice that has years
>> of precedence (autotols would not exist otherwise).
> When there is no fallback, a compilation failure is a good start :)
> To sum up nack for your V1 patch as it's dangerous (runtime failure of
> getrandom)
> your V2 patch helps to backport other binaries from ubox (ubox now
> build on pre 3.17),
> but it still break urandom_seed script with old external toolchain

Yep, it's starting to look a lot like systemd, loving it already!

Lede-dev mailing list

Reply via email to