RHEL Engineering is moving the tracking of its product development work on RHEL 6 through RHEL 9 to Red Hat Jira (issues.redhat.com). If you're a Red Hat customer, please continue to file support cases via the Red Hat customer portal. If you're not, please head to the "RHEL project" in Red Hat Jira and file new tickets here. Individual Bugzilla bugs in the statuses "NEW", "ASSIGNED", and "POST" are being migrated throughout September 2023. Bugs of Red Hat partners with an assigned Engineering Partner Manager (EPM) are migrated in late September as per pre-agreed dates. Bugs against components "kernel", "kernel-rt", and "kpatch" are only migrated if still in "NEW" or "ASSIGNED". If you cannot log in to RH Jira, please consult article #7032570. That failing, please send an e-mail to the RH Jira admins at rh-issues@redhat.com to troubleshoot your issue as a user management inquiry. The email creates a ServiceNow ticket with Red Hat. Individual Bugzilla bugs that are migrated will be moved to status "CLOSED", resolution "MIGRATED", and set with "MigratedToJIRA" in "Keywords". The link to the successor Jira issue will be found under "Links", have a little "two-footprint" icon next to it, and direct you to the "RHEL project" in Red Hat Jira (issue links are of type "https://issues.redhat.com/browse/RHEL-XXXX", where "X" is a digit). This same link will be available in a blue banner at the top of the page informing you that that bug has been migrated.
Bug 864322 - Invalid macro definition in glibc-headers
Summary: Invalid macro definition in glibc-headers
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6
Classification: Red Hat
Component: glibc
Version: 6.3
Hardware: All
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
low
Target Milestone: rc
: ---
Assignee: Jeff Law
QA Contact: qe-baseos-tools-bugs
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2012-10-09 07:06 UTC by Valentine Sinitsyn
Modified: 2016-11-24 16:02 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

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.
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2013-02-21 07:06:01 UTC
Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Attachments (Terms of Use)
Proposed patch that fixes the problem (364 bytes, patch)
2012-10-09 08:31 UTC, Valentine Sinitsyn 		no flags Details | Diff
More accurate version of the same trivial patch (363 bytes, patch)
2012-10-09 08:32 UTC, Valentine Sinitsyn 		no flags Details | Diff
Show Obsolete (1) View All


Links
System ID Private Priority Status Summary Last Updated
Red Hat Product Errata RHBA-2013:0279 0 normal SHIPPED_LIVE glibc bug fix and enhancement update 2013-02-20 20:37:06 UTC

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
Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.