open_issues/glibc_ioctls: New.

1 files changed, 72 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/open_issues/glibc_ioctls.mdwn b/open_issues/glibc_ioctls.mdwn
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..14329d0f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/open_issues/glibc_ioctls.mdwn
@@ -0,0 +1,72 @@
+[[!meta copyright="Copyright © 2010 Free Software Foundation, Inc."]]
+
+[[!meta license="""[[!toggle id="license" text="GFDL 1.2+"]][[!toggleable
+id="license" text="Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this
+document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or
+any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant
+Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.  A copy of the license
+is included in the section entitled [[GNU Free Documentation
+License|/fdl]]."]]"""]]
+
+[[!tag open_issue_glibc]]
+
+IRC, unknown channel, unknown date.
+
+    <pinotree> d'oh, broken defines for ioctl()!
+    <pinotree> http://paste.debian.net/45021/ ← any idea about this? looks like something fishy with the SIO* defines
+    <pinotree> tschwinge: ↑ know anything about this?
+    <pinotree> #define _IOT_arpreq       _IOT_SIMPLE (struct arpreq) ← looks like it is missing for bits/ioctls.h
+    <pinotree> eglibc patch submitted-ioctl-unsigned-size_t.diff should be pimped a bit
+
+    <pinotree> youpi: while trying to compile ossp-uuid (needed by pgsql 8.4, needed by various other stuff), i found a bug in a hurd libc header
+    <youpi> that's possible
+    <pinotree> it has a ioctrl() using an id with a value having type 'struct arpreq'
+    <youpi> ah, that's not a bug then
+    <youpi> see the ioctl section of the porting page of the wiki
+    <pinotree> due to the sort of "mangling" done in bits/ioctrls.h, there should be an helper macro for the size of the struct arpreq
+    <pinotree> +#define _IOT_arpreq       _IOT_SIMPLE (struct arpreq)  ← adding this before any header was enough
+    * pinotree looks
+    <youpi> it's not to be done so simply
+    <youpi> see the page :)
+    <youpi> I'm afraid _IOT_arpreq can't be properly defined
+    * pinotree is not finding it...
+    <pinotree> the closest i see is http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-hurd/2006-03/msg00025.html
+    <youpi> that's it yes
+    <youpi> I mean, that's the kind of thing
+    <youpi> but not the wiki page, let me look
+    <youpi> http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/hurd/porting/guidelines.html
+    <pinotree> i also saw a glib patch adding few types like that (char, short, int)
+    <youpi> yes that's the same kind of thing
+    <pinotree> i see
+    <youpi> setting it to _IOT_SIMPLE(struct arpreq) would probably work with 32bit gnumach and 32bit userland, but may not with e.g. 64bit gnumach and 32bit userland and such
+    <pinotree> hmmm, sockaddr,sockaddr,int,sockaddr,char[16]
+    <pinotree> so basically it would support at most 3 elements in a passed struct?
+    <pinotree> s/elements/fields/
+    <youpi> 3 kinds of fields
+    <youpi> as you provide a count
+    <pinotree> youpi: so basically: #define _IOT_arpreq _IOT (_IOTS (struct sockaddr), 3, _IOTS (int), 1, _IOTS (char), 16) ?
+    <pinotree> ie the order of the fields in the struct does not matter, it seems?
+    <youpi> the order of the fields does matter
+    <youpi> as this encodes how mig will read the struct to send them
+    <pinotree> uhm
+    <youpi> also, _IOTS(struct sockaddr) won't work
+    <pinotree> yeah i should define it too
+    <youpi> no, it even needs to be replaced by its content
+    <pinotree> ah
+    <pinotree> it is possible to compose the _IOTS()?
+    <pinotree> (to build structs with more than 3 kind of fields)
+    <youpi> no
+    <pinotree> d'oh
+    <youpi> that's a hard shortcoming of the whole ioctl encoding
+    * pinotree scratches his head
+    <youpi> there's no way but redefining ioctl(), really
+    <youpi> it was a funny trick to encode it this way, but unrealistic
+    <pinotree> i see, yes
+    <youpi> not to mention ioctls which contain pointers, which just can not be passed to mig
+    <pinotree> indeed
+    <youpi> actually it's not mach's ioctl issue
+    <youpi> as mach doesn't know ioctl
+    <youpi> but the hurd ioctl interface
+    <pinotree> right
+    <youpi> which might end up in mach, other processes, other machines, etc.
+    * pinotree s/Mach/Hurd/ :)