systemd: rebase musl patches

(From OE-Core rev: f34f6ab04b443608497b73668365819343d0c2fe)

Signed-off-by: Yureka Lilian <yuka@yuka.dev>
Signed-off-by: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>
Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>

1 files changed, 0 insertions, 93 deletions

diff --git a/meta/recipes-core/systemd/systemd/0012-don-t-pass-AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW-flag-to-faccessat.patch b/meta/recipes-core/systemd/systemd/0012-don-t-pass-AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW-flag-to-faccessat.patch
deleted file mode 100644
index 6367adce07..0000000000
--- a/meta/recipes-core/systemd/systemd/0012-don-t-pass-AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW-flag-to-faccessat.patch
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,93 +0,0 @@
-From 46fdc959257d60d9b32953cae0152ae118f8564b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
-From: Andre McCurdy <armccurdy@gmail.com>
-Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 14:33:30 -0700
-Subject: [PATCH] don't pass AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW flag to faccessat()
-
-Avoid using AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW flag. It doesn't seem like the right
-thing to do and it's not portable (not supported by musl). See:
-
-  http://lists.landley.net/pipermail/toybox-landley.net/2014-September/003610.html
-  http://www.openwall.com/lists/musl/2015/02/05/2
-
-Note that laccess() is never passing AT_EACCESS so a lot of the
-discussion in the links above doesn't apply. Note also that
-(currently) all systemd callers of laccess() pass mode as F_OK, so
-only check for existence of a file, not access permissions.
-Therefore, in this case, the only distiction between faccessat()
-with (flag == 0) and (flag == AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW) is the behaviour
-for broken symlinks; laccess() on a broken symlink will succeed with
-(flag == AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW) and fail (flag == 0).
-
-The laccess() macros was added to systemd some time ago and it's not
-clear if or why it needs to return success for broken symlinks. Maybe
-just historical and not actually necessary or desired behaviour?
-
-Upstream-Status: Inappropriate [musl specific]
-
-Signed-off-by: Andre McCurdy <armccurdy@gmail.com>
-
----
- src/basic/fs-util.h          | 21 ++++++++++++++++++++-
- src/shared/base-filesystem.c |  6 +++---
- 2 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
-
---- a/src/basic/fs-util.h
-+++ b/src/basic/fs-util.h
-@@ -47,8 +47,27 @@ int futimens_opath(int fd, const struct
- int fd_warn_permissions(const char *path, int fd);
- int stat_warn_permissions(const char *path, const struct stat *st);
- 
-+/*
-+   Avoid using AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW flag. It doesn't seem like the right thing to
-+   do and it's not portable (not supported by musl). See:
-+
-+     http://lists.landley.net/pipermail/toybox-landley.net/2014-September/003610.html
-+     http://www.openwall.com/lists/musl/2015/02/05/2
-+
-+   Note that laccess() is never passing AT_EACCESS so a lot of the discussion in
-+   the links above doesn't apply. Note also that (currently) all systemd callers
-+   of laccess() pass mode as F_OK, so only check for existence of a file, not
-+   access permissions. Therefore, in this case, the only distiction between
-+   faccessat() with (flag == 0) and (flag == AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW) is the
-+   behaviour for broken symlinks; laccess() on a broken symlink will succeed
-+   with (flag == AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW) and fail (flag == 0).
-+
-+   The laccess() macros was added to systemd some time ago and it's not clear if
-+   or why it needs to return success for broken symlinks. Maybe just historical
-+   and not actually necessary or desired behaviour?
-+*/
- #define laccess(path, mode)                                             \
--        RET_NERRNO(faccessat(AT_FDCWD, (path), (mode), AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW))
-+        RET_NERRNO(faccessat(AT_FDCWD, (path), (mode), 0))
- 
- int touch_file(const char *path, bool parents, usec_t stamp, uid_t uid, gid_t gid, mode_t mode);
- 
---- a/src/shared/base-filesystem.c
-+++ b/src/shared/base-filesystem.c
-@@ -131,7 +131,7 @@ int base_filesystem_create(const char *r
-                 return log_error_errno(errno, "Failed to open root file system: %m");
- 
-         for (size_t i = 0; i < ELEMENTSOF(table); i++) {
--                if (faccessat(fd, table[i].dir, F_OK, AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW) >= 0)
-+                if (faccessat(fd, table[i].dir, F_OK, 0) >= 0)
-                         continue;
- 
-                 if (table[i].target) {
-@@ -139,7 +139,7 @@ int base_filesystem_create(const char *r
- 
-                         /* check if one of the targets exists */
-                         NULSTR_FOREACH(s, table[i].target) {
--                                if (faccessat(fd, s, F_OK, AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW) < 0)
-+                                if (faccessat(fd, s, F_OK, 0) < 0)
-                                         continue;
- 
-                                 /* check if a specific file exists at the target path */
-@@ -150,7 +150,7 @@ int base_filesystem_create(const char *r
-                                         if (!p)
-                                                 return log_oom();
- 
--                                        if (faccessat(fd, p, F_OK, AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW) < 0)
-+                                        if (faccessat(fd, p, F_OK, 0) < 0)
-                                                 continue;
-                                 }
-