lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Apr]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 0/2] vfs: Define new syscall getumask.
On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 05:38:24PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 04/13/16 19:13, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> >
> > One other reason to suggest using a /proc file is that you're not at
> > the mercy of the glibc folks to wire up a new system call. (Glibc has
> > been refusing to wire up getrandom(2), for example. Grrrr.....)
> >
>
> This brings right back up the libinux idea. There are continued
> concerns about type compatibility, but saying "oh, use syscall(3)
> instead" has worse properties than a Linux-kernel-team maintained
> libinux. Last I heard the glibc team had (reluctantly?) agreed to do
> something to deal with linux-specific system calls, but last I heard
> nothing had happened. The last discussion I see on the glibc mailing
> list dates back to November, and that thread seems to have died from
> bikeshedding, again.
>
> There aren't a *lot* of such system calls, but even in that thread the
> "oh, only two applications need this, let them use syscall(3)" seems to
> remain.

And only 2 applications will continue to use it because no one wants to
write syscall() wrappers for their individual applications, so it's a
vicious cycle :(

I really like the 'libinux' idea, did anyone every hack up a first-pass
at this? And I'm guessing we have more syscalls now that would need to
be added (like getrandom(), but that shouldn't be too difficult.

thanks,

greg k-h

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-04-18 03:21    [W:0.072 / U:0.052 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site