On Wed, Oct 06, 2021 at 09:43:11PM +0000, Chris Packham wrote:
> Hi,
>
> When compiling strace-5.14 (although it looks like the same problem
> would exist with bleeding edge strace) with headers from the tip of
> Linus's tree (5.15.0-rc4) I get the following error
>
> strace: In file included from static_assert.h:11,
> strace:????????????????? from print_fields.h:12,
> strace:????????????????? from defs.h:1901,
> strace:????????????????? from netlink.c:10:
> strace: xlat/nl_xfrm_types.h:162:1: error: static assertion failed:
> "XFRM_MSG_MAPPING != 0x26"
> strace:? static_assert((XFRM_MSG_MAPPING) == (0x26), "XFRM_MSG_MAPPING
> != 0x26");
> strace:? ^~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> It looks like commit 2d151d39073a ("xfrm: Add possibility to set the
> default to block if we have no policy") added some XFRM messages and the
> numbers shifted. Is this considered an ABI breakage?
>
> I'm not sure if this is a strace problem or a linux problem so I'm
> reporting it in both places.
Yes, this is already covered by
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/T/#u
Thanks,
--
ldv
On Thu, Oct 07, 2021 at 12:48:16AM +0300, Dmitry V. Levin wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 06, 2021 at 09:43:11PM +0000, Chris Packham wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > When compiling strace-5.14 (although it looks like the same problem
> > would exist with bleeding edge strace) with headers from the tip of
> > Linus's tree (5.15.0-rc4) I get the following error
> >
> > strace: In file included from static_assert.h:11,
> > strace:????????????????? from print_fields.h:12,
> > strace:????????????????? from defs.h:1901,
> > strace:????????????????? from netlink.c:10:
> > strace: xlat/nl_xfrm_types.h:162:1: error: static assertion failed:
> > "XFRM_MSG_MAPPING != 0x26"
> > strace:? static_assert((XFRM_MSG_MAPPING) == (0x26), "XFRM_MSG_MAPPING
> > != 0x26");
> > strace:? ^~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > It looks like commit 2d151d39073a ("xfrm: Add possibility to set the
> > default to block if we have no policy") added some XFRM messages and the
> > numbers shifted. Is this considered an ABI breakage?
> >
> > I'm not sure if this is a strace problem or a linux problem so I'm
> > reporting it in both places.
>
> Yes, this is already covered by
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/T/#u
>
> Thanks,
I wonder, why the fix hasn't been merged yet, though.
--
ldv
On Thu, Oct 07, 2021 at 12:51:24AM +0300, Dmitry V. Levin wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 07, 2021 at 12:48:16AM +0300, Dmitry V. Levin wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 06, 2021 at 09:43:11PM +0000, Chris Packham wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > When compiling strace-5.14 (although it looks like the same problem
> > > would exist with bleeding edge strace) with headers from the tip of
> > > Linus's tree (5.15.0-rc4) I get the following error
> > >
> > > strace: In file included from static_assert.h:11,
> > > strace:????????????????? from print_fields.h:12,
> > > strace:????????????????? from defs.h:1901,
> > > strace:????????????????? from netlink.c:10:
> > > strace: xlat/nl_xfrm_types.h:162:1: error: static assertion failed:
> > > "XFRM_MSG_MAPPING != 0x26"
> > > strace:? static_assert((XFRM_MSG_MAPPING) == (0x26), "XFRM_MSG_MAPPING
> > > != 0x26");
> > > strace:? ^~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > > It looks like commit 2d151d39073a ("xfrm: Add possibility to set the
> > > default to block if we have no policy") added some XFRM messages and the
> > > numbers shifted. Is this considered an ABI breakage?
> > >
> > > I'm not sure if this is a strace problem or a linux problem so I'm
> > > reporting it in both places.
> >
> > Yes, this is already covered by
> > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/T/#u
> >
> > Thanks,
>
> I wonder, why the fix hasn't been merged yet, though.
That was due to a delay on my side. I've just sent a pull request
with the fix included.