Bug 864322

Summary: Invalid macro definition in glibc-headers
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 Reporter: Valentine Sinitsyn <valentine.sinitsyn>
Component: glibcAssignee: Jeff Law <law>
Status: CLOSED ERRATA QA Contact: qe-baseos-tools-bugs
Severity: low Docs Contact:
Priority: unspecified    
Version: 6.3CC: fweimer, mfranc
Target Milestone: rc   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Unspecified   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: glibc-2.12-1.104.el6 Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Cause: The definition of IPTOS_CLASS referenced referenced the wrong object. Consequence: Applications built which referenced IPTOS_CLASS from ip.h may not build. If they build they may not operate correctly. Fix: The definition of IPTOS_CLASS was fixed to reference the right object. Result: Applications which reference IPTOS_CLASS from ip.h should build and work correctly.
 Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2013-02-21 07:06:01 UTC Type: Bug
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Attachments:
Description Flags
Proposed patch that fixes the problem
none
More accurate version of the same trivial patch none

Description Valentine Sinitsyn 2012-10-09 07:06:17 UTC 
Description of problem:

netinet/ip.h contains incorrect macro definition:

#define IPTOS_CLASS(class) ((tos) & IPTOS_CLASS_MASK)

Being expanded, this macro always results in ((tos) & IPTOS_CLASS_MASK), regardless what the argument (class) is.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
glibc-headers 2.12

How reproducible:
Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. #include <netinet/ip.h>
2. Define struct iphdr iph;
3. Try to evaluate IPTOS_PREC(iph.tos)
  
Actual results:
Compilation error is issued:
error: ‘tos’ undeclared (first use in this function)

Expected results:
The program compiles okay.

Additional info:
None
Comment 2 Valentine Sinitsyn 2012-10-09 08:31:04 UTC 
Created attachment 623975 [details]
Proposed patch that fixes the problem
Comment 3 Valentine Sinitsyn 2012-10-09 08:32:14 UTC 
Created attachment 623977 [details]
More accurate version of the same trivial patch
Comment 6 errata-xmlrpc 2013-02-21 07:06:01 UTC 
Since the problem described in this bug report should be
resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a
resolution of ERRATA.

For information on the advisory, and where to find the updated
files, follow the link below.

If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report.

http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2013-0279.html