Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 11 Jan 2005 18:32:18 -0800 | From | "Barry K. Nathan" <> | Subject | Re: [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: [snip] > > 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 <barryn@pobox.com>
- 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/
| |