Add additional fields to statx

[Thomasdezeeuw]

Description

Updates statx to include all fields as of Linux v6.16.

Sources

• Linux: https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/038d61fd642278bab63ee8ef722c50d10ab01e8f/include/uapi/linux/stat.h#L99-L193
• glibc: https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=blob;f=io/bits/types/struct_statx.h;h=f8ecc53768e0980d9ef3c737c2141ae769f80e4f;hb=f762ccf84f122d1354f103a151cba8bde797d521#l55-l62

Checklist

• Relevant tests in libc-test/semver have been updated
• No placeholder or unstable values like *LAST or *MAX are
  included (see #3131)
• Tested locally (cd libc-test && cargo test --target mytarget);
  especially relevant for platforms that may not be checked in CI

@rustbot label +stable-nominated

[Thomasdezeeuw]

The CI failure is a Clippy complaints about code I didn't change:

error: this `if` statement can be collapsed
   --> ctest-next/src/translator.rs:221:9
    |
221 | /         if let syn::PathArguments::AngleBracketed(args) = &last.arguments {
222 | |             if let syn::GenericArgument::Type(inner_ty) = args.args.first().unwrap() {
223 | |                 // Option<T> is ONLY ffi-safe if it contains a function pointer, or a reference.
224 | |                 match inner_ty {
...   |
237 | |         }
    | |_________^
    |
    = help: for further information visit https://rust-lang.github.io/rust-clippy/master/index.html#collapsible_if
    = note: `-D clippy::collapsible-if` implied by `-D warnings`
    = help: to override `-D warnings` add `#[allow(clippy::collapsible_if)]`
help: collapse nested if block
    |
221 ~         if let syn::PathArguments::AngleBracketed(args) = &last.arguments
222 ~             && let syn::GenericArgument::Type(inner_ty) = args.args.first().unwrap() {
223 |                 // Option<T> is ONLY ffi-safe if it contains a function pointer, or a reference.
...
235 |                 }
236 ~             }
    |

error: could not compile `ctest-next` (lib) due to 1 previous error

If the maintainers want I can send a pr for this, but I don't think it should be done in this pr.

[tgross35]

These haven't yet been updated in glibc https://github.com/bminor/glibc/blob/a6eb8285d9bfb7ec0875b85ca356e833ff964d4f/io/bits/types/struct_statx.h#L30 or musl, so we should wait for that.

@rustbot blocked

The CI failure is a Clippy complaints about code I didn't change:

That has been fixed, should go away with a rebase

[tgross35]

For reference, here's the glibc patchset adding this https://inbox.sourceware.org/libc-alpha/20251003194707.2326679-1-adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org/

[Thomasdezeeuw]

@tgross35 it seems like the patchset was merged: https://github.com/bminor/glibc/blob/bd569425330c6f5644c232b4b253e9ab905fcdba/io/bits/types/struct_statx.h#L56-L62. Are there any requirements in terms of release/deployment of the glibc changes (i.e. a minimum version)? Or should I rebase and it's good to merge?

[tgross35]

@tgross35 it seems like the patchset was merged: https://github.com/bminor/glibc/blob/bd569425330c6f5644c232b4b253e9ab905fcdba/io/bits/types/struct_statx.h#L56-L62. Are there any requirements in terms of release/deployment of the glibc changes (i.e. a minimum version)? Or should I rebase and it's good to merge?

Thanks for the update, nope that's about it. I'll merge after rebase and CI passing 👍

(Note you may need to skip these fields in libc-test/build.rs)

[Thomasdezeeuw]

Rebased and added the padding.

[Thomasdezeeuw]

It still seems like it's failing in the CI.

glibc now does have the fields definitions, see https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=blob;f=io/bits/types/struct_statx.h;h=f8ecc53768e0980d9ef3c737c2141ae769f80e4f;hb=f762ccf84f122d1354f103a151cba8bde797d521#l55-l62. Added in:

• https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=commitdiff;h=4540cc22374b0324b5df08ea418e11b89b7c099f
• https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=commitdiff;h=5a2ace34fccaf7eedcbd04ae0e09563a1e95c14d
• https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=commitdiff;h=cf73362a7e47a0c107bfd6fc386ac5a387c4c2f0
• https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=commitdiff;h=f8a6b022237a44f1dbfe8d8d8ea1b9ad307ee72c

Which are dates all dated November 5th 2025 and so should be in version 2.43, also see the change log: https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=blob;f=ChangeLog.old/ChangeLog.32;h=4c1668e2df02655d28b43dc513d6424ef0ff6550;hb=HEAD#l5073.

Is it possible to update the glibc to 2.43?

[tgross35]

Looks like that version should be in the next Ubuntu update, in October. If you'd prefer not to wait for then, it could work to add test skips to the relevant fields in libc-test/build.rs.

[tgross35]

Once #5188 you'll be able to gate on kernel and/or glibc version, which should make this more sane.

[rustbot]

This PR was rebased onto a different main commit. Here's a range-diff highlighting what actually changed.

Rebasing is a normal part of keeping PRs up to date, so no action is needed—this note is just to help reviewers.

[Thomasdezeeuw]

I rebased this on main/#5188, needed to do a force push. The existing commits are not changed, only change is in the new commit.

[tgross35]

If this is still relevant, mind updating to 2026-06?

View changes since the review

[tgross35]

These skips should be in skip_struct_field to not run any tests on them, rather than skip_struct_field_types which just turns off some of the checks for that field.

View changes since the review

[Thomasdezeeuw]

Done.

[Thomasdezeeuw]

Alright, took some time but this is finally green @tgross35 :)

[tgross35]

LGTM! Please just squash

View changes since this review

[tgross35]

@rustbot author

[rustbot]

Reminder, once the PR becomes ready for a review, use @rustbot ready.