[Buildroot] ebtables and musl

[Buildroot] ebtables and musl

[Markus Mayer]

Hi all,

I see this patch in Buildroot:
http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/buildroot/2017-February/184225.html

However, I am still running into the issue it is supposed to fix.

This is with musl-1.2.0, the latest and greatest. I'm no longer stuck
with the ancient libmusl that caused issues with procps. It doesn't
seem to help with ebtables, though.

/mnt/disk1/Development/br-musl/output/arm64/host/bin/aarch64-linux-gcc
-D_LARGEFILE_SOURCE -D_LARGEFILE64_SOURCE -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64  -Os
  -fPIC -O3 -DPROGVERSION=\"2.0.10-4\" -DPROGNAME=\"ebtables\"
-DPROGDATE=\"December\ 2011\" -D_PATH_ETHERTYPES=\"/etc/ethertypes\"
-DEBTD_ARGC_MAX=50 -DEBTD_CMDLINE_MAXLN=2048
-DLOCKFILE=\"/var/lib/ebtables/lock\" -DLOCKDIR=\"/var/lib/ebtables/\"
-c -o extensions/ebt_802_3.o extensions/ebt_802_3.c -Iinclude/
In file included from include/linux/netfilter_bridge.h:8:0,
                 from include/linux/netfilter_bridge/ebtables.h:17,
                 from include/ebtables_u.h:28,
                 from useful_functions.c:25:
include/linux/if_ether.h:119:8: error: redefinition of 'struct ethhdr'
 struct ethhdr {
        ^~~~~~
In file included from
../../host/aarch64-buildroot-linux-musl/sysroot/usr/include/netinet/ether.h:8:0,
                 from include/ebtables_u.h:27,
                 from useful_functions.c:25:
../../host/aarch64-buildroot-linux-musl/sysroot/usr/include/netinet/if_ether.h:113:8:
note: originally defined here
 struct ethhdr {
        ^~~~~~
Makefile:78: recipe for target 'useful_functions.o' failed
make[2]: *** [useful_functions.o] Error 1
make[2]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs....

I am not quite sure what to make of it yet.

Is it cause by the fact that include/linux/if_ether.h defines

#ifndef _LINUX_IF_ETHER_H
#define _LINUX_IF_ETHER_H

but include/netinet/if_ether.h defines

#ifndef _NETINET_IF_ETHER_H
#define _NETINET_IF_ETHER_H

and they both end up being included?

$ find . -name if_ether.h -ls
  6025818      4 -rw-r--r--   1 mmayer   mmayer       1506 May 26
16:30 ./build/linux-custom/include/linux/if_ether.h
  6028683      8 -rw-r--r--   1 mmayer   mmayer       7461 May 26
16:30 ./build/linux-custom/include/uapi/linux/if_ether.h
  6047054      8 -rw-r--r--   1 mmayer   mmayer       5751 Dec 15
2011 ./build/ebtables-2.0.10-4/include/linux/if_ether.h
  5934557      8 -rw-r--r--   1 mmayer   mmayer       7016 Jun 10
16:52 ./host/aarch64-buildroot-linux-musl/sysroot/usr/include/linux/if_ether.h
  5935035      4 -rw-r--r--   1 mmayer   mmayer       3625 Jun 10
16:52 ./host/aarch64-buildroot-linux-musl/sysroot/usr/include/netinet/if_ether.h

Also, there's five different copies of if_ether.h floating around.

While we are on the topic of ebtables, why is buildroot still using
v2.0.10-4 from 2014 when there is 2.0.11 from 2019 (as per
http://ftp.netfilter.org/pub/ebtables/)? Is it just a matter of
submitting a patch to update it or is there an underlying reason to
keep the old version around?

Thanks,
-Markus

[Buildroot] ebtables and musl

[Peter Seiderer]

Hello Markus,

On Fri, 12 Jun 2020 13:10:28 -0700, Markus Mayer <mmayer@broadcom.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I see this patch in Buildroot:
> http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/buildroot/2017-February/184225.html
>
> However, I am still running into the issue it is supposed to fix.
>
> This is with musl-1.2.0, the latest and greatest. I'm no longer stuck
> with the ancient libmusl that caused issues with procps. It doesn't
> seem to help with ebtables, though.
>
> /mnt/disk1/Development/br-musl/output/arm64/host/bin/aarch64-linux-gcc
> -D_LARGEFILE_SOURCE -D_LARGEFILE64_SOURCE -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64  -Os
>   -fPIC -O3 -DPROGVERSION=\"2.0.10-4\" -DPROGNAME=\"ebtables\"
> -DPROGDATE=\"December\ 2011\" -D_PATH_ETHERTYPES=\"/etc/ethertypes\"
> -DEBTD_ARGC_MAX=50 -DEBTD_CMDLINE_MAXLN=2048
> -DLOCKFILE=\"/var/lib/ebtables/lock\" -DLOCKDIR=\"/var/lib/ebtables/\"
> -c -o extensions/ebt_802_3.o extensions/ebt_802_3.c -Iinclude/
> In file included from include/linux/netfilter_bridge.h:8:0,
>                  from include/linux/netfilter_bridge/ebtables.h:17,
>                  from include/ebtables_u.h:28,
>                  from useful_functions.c:25:
> include/linux/if_ether.h:119:8: error: redefinition of 'struct ethhdr'
>  struct ethhdr {
>         ^~~~~~
> In file included from
> ../../host/aarch64-buildroot-linux-musl/sysroot/usr/include/netinet/ether.h:8:0,
>                  from include/ebtables_u.h:27,
>                  from useful_functions.c:25:
> ../../host/aarch64-buildroot-linux-musl/sysroot/usr/include/netinet/if_ether.h:113:8:
> note: originally defined here
>  struct ethhdr {
>         ^~~~~~
> Makefile:78: recipe for target 'useful_functions.o' failed
> make[2]: *** [useful_functions.o] Error 1
> make[2]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs....
>
> I am not quite sure what to make of it yet.
>
> Is it cause by the fact that include/linux/if_ether.h defines
>
> #ifndef _LINUX_IF_ETHER_H
> #define _LINUX_IF_ETHER_H
>
> but include/netinet/if_ether.h defines
>
> #ifndef _NETINET_IF_ETHER_H
> #define _NETINET_IF_ETHER_H
>
> and they both end up being included?
>
> $ find . -name if_ether.h -ls
>   6025818      4 -rw-r--r--   1 mmayer   mmayer       1506 May 26
> 16:30 ./build/linux-custom/include/linux/if_ether.h
>   6028683      8 -rw-r--r--   1 mmayer   mmayer       7461 May 26
> 16:30 ./build/linux-custom/include/uapi/linux/if_ether.h
>   6047054      8 -rw-r--r--   1 mmayer   mmayer       5751 Dec 15
> 2011 ./build/ebtables-2.0.10-4/include/linux/if_ether.h
>   5934557      8 -rw-r--r--   1 mmayer   mmayer       7016 Jun 10
> 16:52 ./host/aarch64-buildroot-linux-musl/sysroot/usr/include/linux/if_ether.h
>   5935035      4 -rw-r--r--   1 mmayer   mmayer       3625 Jun 10
> 16:52 ./host/aarch64-buildroot-linux-musl/sysroot/usr/include/netinet/if_ether.h
>
> Also, there's five different copies of if_ether.h floating around.

Care to provide a config/defconfig file for the failure (and provide the
used buildroot version)?

>
> While we are on the topic of ebtables, why is buildroot still using
> v2.0.10-4 from 2014 when there is 2.0.11 from 2019 (as per
> http://ftp.netfilter.org/pub/ebtables/)? Is it just a matter of
> submitting a patch to update it or is there an underlying reason to
> keep the old version around?

Probably not, care to send an ebtables update patch?

Regards,
Peter

>
> Thanks,
> -Markus
> _______________________________________________
> buildroot mailing list
> buildroot at busybox.net
> http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/buildroot

[Buildroot] ebtables and musl

[Peter Seiderer]

Hello Markus,

On Sat, 13 Jun 2020 13:23:17 +0200, Peter Seiderer <ps.report@gmx.net> wrote:

> Hello Markus,
>
> On Fri, 12 Jun 2020 13:10:28 -0700, Markus Mayer <mmayer@broadcom.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I see this patch in Buildroot:
> > http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/buildroot/2017-February/184225.html
> >
> > However, I am still running into the issue it is supposed to fix.
> >
> > This is with musl-1.2.0, the latest and greatest. I'm no longer stuck
> > with the ancient libmusl that caused issues with procps. It doesn't
> > seem to help with ebtables, though.
> >
> > /mnt/disk1/Development/br-musl/output/arm64/host/bin/aarch64-linux-gcc
> > -D_LARGEFILE_SOURCE -D_LARGEFILE64_SOURCE -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64  -Os
> >   -fPIC -O3 -DPROGVERSION=\"2.0.10-4\" -DPROGNAME=\"ebtables\"
> > -DPROGDATE=\"December\ 2011\" -D_PATH_ETHERTYPES=\"/etc/ethertypes\"
> > -DEBTD_ARGC_MAX=50 -DEBTD_CMDLINE_MAXLN=2048
> > -DLOCKFILE=\"/var/lib/ebtables/lock\" -DLOCKDIR=\"/var/lib/ebtables/\"
> > -c -o extensions/ebt_802_3.o extensions/ebt_802_3.c -Iinclude/
> > In file included from include/linux/netfilter_bridge.h:8:0,
> >                  from include/linux/netfilter_bridge/ebtables.h:17,
> >                  from include/ebtables_u.h:28,
> >                  from useful_functions.c:25:
> > include/linux/if_ether.h:119:8: error: redefinition of 'struct ethhdr'
> >  struct ethhdr {
> >         ^~~~~~
> > In file included from
> > ../../host/aarch64-buildroot-linux-musl/sysroot/usr/include/netinet/ether.h:8:0,
> >                  from include/ebtables_u.h:27,
> >                  from useful_functions.c:25:
> > ../../host/aarch64-buildroot-linux-musl/sysroot/usr/include/netinet/if_ether.h:113:8:
> > note: originally defined here
> >  struct ethhdr {
> >         ^~~~~~
> > Makefile:78: recipe for target 'useful_functions.o' failed
> > make[2]: *** [useful_functions.o] Error 1
> > make[2]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs....
> >
> > I am not quite sure what to make of it yet.
> >
> > Is it cause by the fact that include/linux/if_ether.h defines
> >
> > #ifndef _LINUX_IF_ETHER_H
> > #define _LINUX_IF_ETHER_H
> >
> > but include/netinet/if_ether.h defines
> >
> > #ifndef _NETINET_IF_ETHER_H
> > #define _NETINET_IF_ETHER_H
> >
> > and they both end up being included?
> >
> > $ find . -name if_ether.h -ls
> >   6025818      4 -rw-r--r--   1 mmayer   mmayer       1506 May 26
> > 16:30 ./build/linux-custom/include/linux/if_ether.h
> >   6028683      8 -rw-r--r--   1 mmayer   mmayer       7461 May 26
> > 16:30 ./build/linux-custom/include/uapi/linux/if_ether.h
> >   6047054      8 -rw-r--r--   1 mmayer   mmayer       5751 Dec 15
> > 2011 ./build/ebtables-2.0.10-4/include/linux/if_ether.h
> >   5934557      8 -rw-r--r--   1 mmayer   mmayer       7016 Jun 10
> > 16:52 ./host/aarch64-buildroot-linux-musl/sysroot/usr/include/linux/if_ether.h
> >   5935035      4 -rw-r--r--   1 mmayer   mmayer       3625 Jun 10
> > 16:52 ./host/aarch64-buildroot-linux-musl/sysroot/usr/include/netinet/if_ether.h
> >
> > Also, there's five different copies of if_ether.h floating around.
>
> Care to provide a config/defconfig file for the failure (and provide the
> used buildroot version)?

Or did your use an external toolchain?

The patch states ([1]):

	Upstream status: not upstreamable; depends on Buildroot local musl patch

Regards,
Peter

[1] https://git.buildroot.net/buildroot/tree/package/ebtables/0002-Fix-musl-compatibility.patch#n11

>
> >
> > While we are on the topic of ebtables, why is buildroot still using
> > v2.0.10-4 from 2014 when there is 2.0.11 from 2019 (as per
> > http://ftp.netfilter.org/pub/ebtables/)? Is it just a matter of
> > submitting a patch to update it or is there an underlying reason to
> > keep the old version around?
>
> Probably not, care to send an ebtables update patch?
>
> Regards,
> Peter
>
> >
> > Thanks,
> > -Markus
> > _______________________________________________
> > buildroot mailing list
> > buildroot at busybox.net
> > http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/buildroot
>
> _______________________________________________
> buildroot mailing list
> buildroot at busybox.net
> http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/buildroot

[Buildroot] ebtables and musl

[Markus Mayer]

On Sat, 13 Jun 2020 at 05:43, Peter Seiderer <ps.report@gmx.net> wrote:

> On Fri, 12 Jun 2020 13:10:28 -0700, Markus Mayer <mmayer@broadcom.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > I see this patch in Buildroot:
> > > http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/buildroot/2017-February/184225.html
> > >
> > > However, I am still running into the issue it is supposed to fix.
> > >
> > > This is with musl-1.2.0, the latest and greatest. I'm no longer stuck
> > > with the ancient libmusl that caused issues with procps. It doesn't
> > > seem to help with ebtables, though.
> > >
> > > /mnt/disk1/Development/br-musl/output/arm64/host/bin/aarch64-linux-gcc
> > > -D_LARGEFILE_SOURCE -D_LARGEFILE64_SOURCE -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64  -Os
> > >   -fPIC -O3 -DPROGVERSION=\"2.0.10-4\" -DPROGNAME=\"ebtables\"
> > > -DPROGDATE=\"December\ 2011\" -D_PATH_ETHERTYPES=\"/etc/ethertypes\"
> > > -DEBTD_ARGC_MAX=50 -DEBTD_CMDLINE_MAXLN=2048
> > > -DLOCKFILE=\"/var/lib/ebtables/lock\" -DLOCKDIR=\"/var/lib/ebtables/\"
> > > -c -o extensions/ebt_802_3.o extensions/ebt_802_3.c -Iinclude/
> > > In file included from include/linux/netfilter_bridge.h:8:0,
> > >                  from include/linux/netfilter_bridge/ebtables.h:17,
> > >                  from include/ebtables_u.h:28,
> > >                  from useful_functions.c:25:
> > > include/linux/if_ether.h:119:8: error: redefinition of 'struct ethhdr'
> > >  struct ethhdr {
> > >         ^~~~~~
> > > In file included from
> > > ../../host/aarch64-buildroot-linux-musl/sysroot/usr/include/netinet/ether.h:8:0,
> > >                  from include/ebtables_u.h:27,
> > >                  from useful_functions.c:25:
> > > ../../host/aarch64-buildroot-linux-musl/sysroot/usr/include/netinet/if_ether.h:113:8:
> > > note: originally defined here
> > >  struct ethhdr {
> > >         ^~~~~~
> > > Makefile:78: recipe for target 'useful_functions.o' failed
> > > make[2]: *** [useful_functions.o] Error 1
> > > make[2]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs....
> > >
> > > I am not quite sure what to make of it yet.
> > >
> > > Is it cause by the fact that include/linux/if_ether.h defines
> > >
> > > #ifndef _LINUX_IF_ETHER_H
> > > #define _LINUX_IF_ETHER_H
> > >
> > > but include/netinet/if_ether.h defines
> > >
> > > #ifndef _NETINET_IF_ETHER_H
> > > #define _NETINET_IF_ETHER_H
> > >
> > > and they both end up being included?
> > >
> > > $ find . -name if_ether.h -ls
> > >   6025818      4 -rw-r--r--   1 mmayer   mmayer       1506 May 26
> > > 16:30 ./build/linux-custom/include/linux/if_ether.h
> > >   6028683      8 -rw-r--r--   1 mmayer   mmayer       7461 May 26
> > > 16:30 ./build/linux-custom/include/uapi/linux/if_ether.h
> > >   6047054      8 -rw-r--r--   1 mmayer   mmayer       5751 Dec 15
> > > 2011 ./build/ebtables-2.0.10-4/include/linux/if_ether.h
> > >   5934557      8 -rw-r--r--   1 mmayer   mmayer       7016 Jun 10
> > > 16:52 ./host/aarch64-buildroot-linux-musl/sysroot/usr/include/linux/if_ether.h
> > >   5935035      4 -rw-r--r--   1 mmayer   mmayer       3625 Jun 10
> > > 16:52 ./host/aarch64-buildroot-linux-musl/sysroot/usr/include/netinet/if_ether.h
> > >
> > > Also, there's five different copies of if_ether.h floating around.
> >
> > Care to provide a config/defconfig file for the failure (and provide the
> > used buildroot version)?
>
> Or did your use an external toolchain?

Yes. It's an external toolchain. Buildroot is 2020.05.

> The patch states ([1]):
>
>         Upstream status: not upstreamable; depends on Buildroot local musl patch

Thanks for the pointer. I didn't realize there were toolchain patches
to musl in BR. I'll take a look at them.

> Regards,
> Peter
>
> [1] https://git.buildroot.net/buildroot/tree/package/ebtables/0002-Fix-musl-compatibility.patch#n11
>
> >
> > >
> > > While we are on the topic of ebtables, why is buildroot still using
> > > v2.0.10-4 from 2014 when there is 2.0.11 from 2019 (as per
> > > http://ftp.netfilter.org/pub/ebtables/)? Is it just a matter of
> > > submitting a patch to update it or is there an underlying reason to
> > > keep the old version around?
> >
> > Probably not, care to send an ebtables update patch?

Sure. I'll send a patch.

Regards,
-Markus

[Buildroot] ebtables and musl

[Baruch Siach]

Hi Markus,

On Sat, Jun 13 2020, Markus Mayer wrote:

> On Sat, 13 Jun 2020 at 05:43, Peter Seiderer <ps.report@gmx.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Jun 2020 13:10:28 -0700, Markus Mayer <mmayer@broadcom.com> wrote:
>> > > While we are on the topic of ebtables, why is buildroot still using
>> > > v2.0.10-4 from 2014 when there is 2.0.11 from 2019 (as per
>> > > http://ftp.netfilter.org/pub/ebtables/)? Is it just a matter of
>> > > submitting a patch to update it or is there an underlying reason to
>> > > keep the old version around?
>> >
>> > Probably not, care to send an ebtables update patch?
>
> Sure. I'll send a patch.

We have a version upgrade patch in patchwork:

  http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/buildroot/patch/20200427212653.29933-1-ryanbarnett3 at gmail.com/

You might want to test and contribute your Tested-by.

baruch

-- 
                                                     ~. .~   Tk Open Systems
=}------------------------------------------------ooO--U--Ooo------------{=
   - baruch at tkos.co.il - tel: +972.52.368.4656, http://www.tkos.co.il -

[Buildroot] ebtables and musl

[Markus Mayer]

On Sat, 13 Jun 2020 at 20:00, Baruch Siach <baruch@tkos.co.il> wrote:
>
> Hi Markus,
>
> On Sat, Jun 13 2020, Markus Mayer wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 13 Jun 2020 at 05:43, Peter Seiderer <ps.report@gmx.net> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 12 Jun 2020 13:10:28 -0700, Markus Mayer <mmayer@broadcom.com> wrote:
> >> > > While we are on the topic of ebtables, why is buildroot still using
> >> > > v2.0.10-4 from 2014 when there is 2.0.11 from 2019 (as per
> >> > > http://ftp.netfilter.org/pub/ebtables/)? Is it just a matter of
> >> > > submitting a patch to update it or is there an underlying reason to
> >> > > keep the old version around?
> >> >
> >> > Probably not, care to send an ebtables update patch?
> >
> > Sure. I'll send a patch.
>
> We have a version upgrade patch in patchwork:
>
>   http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/buildroot/patch/20200427212653.29933-1-ryanbarnett3 at gmail.com/
>
> You might want to test and contribute your Tested-by.

Will do. I'll let you know how it goes.

Regards,
-Markus

> baruch
>
> --
>                                                      ~. .~   Tk Open Systems
> =}------------------------------------------------ooO--U--Ooo------------{=
>    - baruch at tkos.co.il - tel: +972.52.368.4656, http://www.tkos.co.il -

[Buildroot] ebtables and musl

[Florian Fainelli]

On 6/13/2020 8:34 PM, Markus Mayer wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Jun 2020 at 20:00, Baruch Siach <baruch@tkos.co.il> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Markus,
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 13 2020, Markus Mayer wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 13 Jun 2020 at 05:43, Peter Seiderer <ps.report@gmx.net> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 12 Jun 2020 13:10:28 -0700, Markus Mayer <mmayer@broadcom.com> wrote:
>>>>>> While we are on the topic of ebtables, why is buildroot still using
>>>>>> v2.0.10-4 from 2014 when there is 2.0.11 from 2019 (as per
>>>>>> http://ftp.netfilter.org/pub/ebtables/)? Is it just a matter of
>>>>>> submitting a patch to update it or is there an underlying reason to
>>>>>> keep the old version around?
>>>>>
>>>>> Probably not, care to send an ebtables update patch?
>>>
>>> Sure. I'll send a patch.
>>
>> We have a version upgrade patch in patchwork:
>>
>>   http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/buildroot/patch/20200427212653.29933-1-ryanbarnett3 at gmail.com/
>>
>> You might want to test and contribute your Tested-by.
> 
> Will do. I'll let you know how it goes.

Would not these two patches be relevant for the kernel headers too:

https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=da360299b6734135a5f66d7db458dcc7801c826a
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=6926e041a8920c8ec27e4e155efa760aa01551fd

which would not require patching ebtables or musl at all?
-- 
Florian

[Buildroot] ebtables and musl

[Markus Mayer]

On Sun, 14 Jun 2020 at 14:34, Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 6/13/2020 8:34 PM, Markus Mayer wrote:
> > On Sat, 13 Jun 2020 at 20:00, Baruch Siach <baruch@tkos.co.il> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Markus,
> >>
> >> On Sat, Jun 13 2020, Markus Mayer wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Sat, 13 Jun 2020 at 05:43, Peter Seiderer <ps.report@gmx.net> wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, 12 Jun 2020 13:10:28 -0700, Markus Mayer <mmayer@broadcom.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> While we are on the topic of ebtables, why is buildroot still using
> >>>>>> v2.0.10-4 from 2014 when there is 2.0.11 from 2019 (as per
> >>>>>> http://ftp.netfilter.org/pub/ebtables/)? Is it just a matter of
> >>>>>> submitting a patch to update it or is there an underlying reason to
> >>>>>> keep the old version around?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Probably not, care to send an ebtables update patch?
> >>>
> >>> Sure. I'll send a patch.
> >>
> >> We have a version upgrade patch in patchwork:
> >>
> >>   http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/buildroot/patch/20200427212653.29933-1-ryanbarnett3 at gmail.com/
> >>
> >> You might want to test and contribute your Tested-by.
> >
> > Will do. I'll let you know how it goes.
>
> Would not these two patches be relevant for the kernel headers too:
>
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=da360299b6734135a5f66d7db458dcc7801c826a
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=6926e041a8920c8ec27e4e155efa760aa01551fd
>
> which would not require patching ebtables or musl at all?

I confirmed that ebtables 2.0.11 works for me with glibc. With musl
(and our external toolchain) not quite yet. I'll look at these patches
tomorrow.

Regards,
-Markus

[Buildroot] ebtables and musl

[Baruch Siach]

Hi Florian,

On Mon, Jun 15 2020, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> On 6/13/2020 8:34 PM, Markus Mayer wrote:
>> On Sat, 13 Jun 2020 at 20:00, Baruch Siach <baruch@tkos.co.il> wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jun 13 2020, Markus Mayer wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 13 Jun 2020 at 05:43, Peter Seiderer <ps.report@gmx.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 12 Jun 2020 13:10:28 -0700, Markus Mayer <mmayer@broadcom.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> While we are on the topic of ebtables, why is buildroot still using
>>>>>>> v2.0.10-4 from 2014 when there is 2.0.11 from 2019 (as per
>>>>>>> http://ftp.netfilter.org/pub/ebtables/)? Is it just a matter of
>>>>>>> submitting a patch to update it or is there an underlying reason to
>>>>>>> keep the old version around?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Probably not, care to send an ebtables update patch?
>>>>
>>>> Sure. I'll send a patch.
>>>
>>> We have a version upgrade patch in patchwork:
>>>
>>>   http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/buildroot/patch/20200427212653.29933-1-ryanbarnett3 at gmail.com/
>>>
>>> You might want to test and contribute your Tested-by.
>> 
>> Will do. I'll let you know how it goes.
>
> Would not these two patches be relevant for the kernel headers too:
>
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=da360299b6734135a5f66d7db458dcc7801c826a
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=6926e041a8920c8ec27e4e155efa760aa01551fd
>
> which would not require patching ebtables or musl at all?

Buildroot allows the user to set the kernel version, or even provide a
whole kernel tree. This includes kernels older than v4.15/v4.16. Because
of that we can't rely on any given patch to apply to the kernel version
we happen to use for the toolchain.

The ebtables patch is no longer needed for version 2.0.11. The musl
patch however is still needed for compatibility with older kernels.

baruch

-- 
                                                     ~. .~   Tk Open Systems
=}------------------------------------------------ooO--U--Ooo------------{=
   - baruch at tkos.co.il - tel: +972.52.368.4656, http://www.tkos.co.il -

[Buildroot] ebtables and musl

[Markus Mayer]

On Sun, 14 Jun 2020 at 20:55, Baruch Siach <baruch@tkos.co.il> wrote:
>
> Hi Florian,
>
> On Mon, Jun 15 2020, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> > On 6/13/2020 8:34 PM, Markus Mayer wrote:
> >> On Sat, 13 Jun 2020 at 20:00, Baruch Siach <baruch@tkos.co.il> wrote:
> >>> On Sat, Jun 13 2020, Markus Mayer wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Sat, 13 Jun 2020 at 05:43, Peter Seiderer <ps.report@gmx.net> wrote:
> >>>>> On Fri, 12 Jun 2020 13:10:28 -0700, Markus Mayer <mmayer@broadcom.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> While we are on the topic of ebtables, why is buildroot still using
> >>>>>>> v2.0.10-4 from 2014 when there is 2.0.11 from 2019 (as per
> >>>>>>> http://ftp.netfilter.org/pub/ebtables/)? Is it just a matter of
> >>>>>>> submitting a patch to update it or is there an underlying reason to
> >>>>>>> keep the old version around?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Probably not, care to send an ebtables update patch?
> >>>>
> >>>> Sure. I'll send a patch.
> >>>
> >>> We have a version upgrade patch in patchwork:
> >>>
> >>>   http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/buildroot/patch/20200427212653.29933-1-ryanbarnett3 at gmail.com/
> >>>
> >>> You might want to test and contribute your Tested-by.
> >>
> >> Will do. I'll let you know how it goes.
> >
> > Would not these two patches be relevant for the kernel headers too:
> >
> > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=da360299b6734135a5f66d7db458dcc7801c826a
> > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=6926e041a8920c8ec27e4e155efa760aa01551fd
> >
> > which would not require patching ebtables or musl at all?
>
> Buildroot allows the user to set the kernel version, or even provide a
> whole kernel tree. This includes kernels older than v4.15/v4.16. Because
> of that we can't rely on any given patch to apply to the kernel version
> we happen to use for the toolchain.
>
> The ebtables patch is no longer needed for version 2.0.11. The musl
> patch however is still needed for compatibility with older kernels.

Building ebtables 2.0.11 with musl 1.2.0 works for me if I use the
same toolchain (musl) patch that Buildroot is using and apply it to
our external toolchain
(https://git.buildroot.net/buildroot/tree/package/musl/0001-avoid-kernel-if_ether.h.patch).
The kernel version is 4.9.

Regards,
-Markus

> baruch
>
> --
>                                                      ~. .~   Tk Open Systems
> =}------------------------------------------------ooO--U--Ooo------------{=
>    - baruch at tkos.co.il - tel: +972.52.368.4656, http://www.tkos.co.il -