Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 12 Jan 2005 07:58:04 +0000 | From | Christoph Hellwig <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] make uselib configurable (was Re: uselib() & 2.6.X?) |
| |
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 12:59:07AM +0100, Andries Brouwer wrote: > s/sys_uselib/uselib/ > The system call is uselib(). > > Hmm - old cruft.. Why insult your users? > I do not have source for Maple. And my xmaple binary works just fine. > But it is a libc4 binary. > > You mean "on the typical recently installed Linux system, with nothing > but the usual Linux utilities". > > People always claim that Linux is good in preserving binary compatibility. > Don't know how true that was, but introducing such config options doesnt > help. > > Let me also mutter about something else. > In principle configuration options are evil. Nobody wants fifty thousand > configuration options. But I see them multiply like ioctls. > There should be a significant gain in having a config option. > > > Maybe some argue that there is a gain in security here. Perhaps. > Or a gain in memory. It is negligible. > I see mostly a loss. > > There are more ancient system calls, like old_stat and oldolduname. > Do we want separate options for each system call that is obsoleted?
Agreed to this complaint. I still think it might be a good idea to allow configuring obsolete syscalls out, but doing that on a per-syscall basis sounds like a bad idea. I always liked the way FreeBSD one conditionals for everything that was obsoleted in a release. So by setting only few options you could select how old binaries you want to support, defaulting to on for all of them. - 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/
| |