[lkml]   [2005]   [Jan]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] make uselib configurable (was Re: uselib() & 2.6.X?)
    On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 08:36:41PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
    > On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 05:18:16PM -0800, David Lang wrote:
    > > how about something like the embedded, experimental, and broken options.
    > > that way normal users can disable all of them at a stroke, people who need
    > > them can add them in.

    That is what I had in mind for the longer term. Now that I think about
    it, my current patch is probably a bad way to get from here to there --
    it adds a config option that would later *need* to be renamed and moved
    to a different category.

    (To be specific, the concept I have in mind is to have an option that
    disables the syscalls that are usually used only by libc5 and earlier.)

    > Thats just not an option - you would have zillions of config options.

    I don't see how it would be zillions, but it's possible there's
    something I'm not yet understanding.

    > Moreover this is a system call, and the system call interface is one of the few
    > supposed to be stable. You shouldnt simply assume that "no one will ever use sys_uselib()" -
    > there might be programs out there who use it.

    And if you have programs that need it, you (or your vendor) can set the
    config option accordingly.

    -Barry K. Nathan <>

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 14:09    [W:0.028 / U:0.384 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site