On 8/22/25 02:33, Joanne Koong wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 6:01 PM Darrick J. Wong <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> From: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> fuse.h and fuse_lowlevel.h are public headers, don't expose internal
>> build system config variables to downstream clients. This can also lead
>> to function pointer ordering issues if (say) libfuse gets built with
>> HAVE_STATX but the client program doesn't define a HAVE_STATX.
>>
>> Get rid of the conditionals in the public header files to fix this.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> include/fuse.h | 2 --
>> include/fuse_lowlevel.h | 2 --
>> example/memfs_ll.cc | 2 +-
>> example/passthrough.c | 2 +-
>> example/passthrough_fh.c | 2 +-
>> example/passthrough_ll.c | 2 +-
>> 6 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>
>>
>> diff --git a/include/fuse.h b/include/fuse.h
>> index 06feacb070fbfb..209102651e9454 100644
>> --- a/include/fuse.h
>> +++ b/include/fuse.h
>> @@ -854,7 +854,6 @@ struct fuse_operations {
>> */
>> off_t (*lseek) (const char *, off_t off, int whence, struct fuse_file_info *);
>>
>> -#ifdef HAVE_STATX
>> /**
>> * Get extended file attributes.
>> *
>> @@ -865,7 +864,6 @@ struct fuse_operations {
>> */
>> int (*statx)(const char *path, int flags, int mask, struct statx *stxbuf,
>> struct fuse_file_info *fi);
>> -#endif
>> };
>
> Are we able to just remove this ifdef? Won't this break compilation on
> old systems that don't recognize "struct statx"?
Yeah, you had added forward declaration actually. Slipped through in
my review that we don't need the HAVE_STATX anymore.
We can also extend the patch a bit to remove HAVE_STATX from the public
config.
Another alternative for this patch would be to replace HAVE_STATX by
HAVE_FUSE_STATX.
The commit message is also not entirely right, as it says
> to function pointer ordering issues if (say) libfuse gets built with
> HAVE_STATX but the client program doesn't define a HAVE_STATX.
Actually not, because /usr/include/fuse3/libfuse_config.h defines HAVE_STATX.
I'm more worried that there might be a conflict of HAVE_STATX from libfuse
with HAVE_STATX from the application.
Thanks,
Bernd
