lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Nov]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCHv3 0/4] sys_indirect system call
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:

>
> * Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com> wrote:
>
> > I do see a problem, because some readers will take your example as a
> > reference, as it will probably sit in a page that
> > google^Wsearch_engines will bring at the top of search results for
> > next ten years or so.
> >
> > (I bet for "sys_indirect syscall" -> http://lwn.net/Articles/258708/ )
> >
> > Next time you post it, please warn users that it will break in some
> > years, or state clearly this should only be used internally by glibc.
>
> dont be silly, next time Ulrich should also warn everyone that running
> attachments and applying patches from untrusted sources is dangerous?
>
> any code that includes:
>
> fd = syscall (__NR_indirect, &r, &i, sizeof (i));
>
> is by definition broken and unportable in every sense of the word. Apps
> will use the proper glibc interfaces (if it's exposed).

as an application writer how do i access accept(2) with FD_CLOEXEC
functionality? will glibc expose an accept2() with a flags param? if
so... why don't we just have an accept2() syscall?

-dean
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-11-20 15:15    [W:0.059 / U:0.560 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site