[lkml]   [2018]   [Nov]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Official Linux system wrapper library?
* Daniel Colascione:

> On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 12:17 AM, Willy Tarreau <> wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 07:55:30AM +0100, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
>> > [1]
>> Bah, after all, this
>> wipes quite a bit of the shame I feel every time I do something to
>> bypass it :-/
>> The sad thing is that the energy wasted arguing in the bug above could
>> have been better spent designing and implementing a generic solution
>> to expose syscalls without depending on glibc's politics anymore.
>> Willy
>> bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6399 is a
>> > longstanding example.
>> This one was a sad read and shows that applications will continue to
>> suffer from glibc's prehistorical view on operating systems
> Yes. I'm really not sure what glibc's current policies are meant to
> accomplish. They don't serve any useful purpose. There seems to be
> this weird subtext that glibc has leverage to change OS design, and it
> really doesn't. It's a misplaced idealism and ends up just hurting
> everyone.

I'm not sure what this comment tries to accomplish.

glibc tries to serve many masters: Current and past Linux kernel
interfaces, current Hurd kernel interfaces, different versions of POSIX
and C (and even C++), current C/C++ programming practice, historic C
programming practice, current and historic Linux userspace programming,
various platform ABIs, just to name a few.

These requirements are often in conflict.

>> Seeing comments suggesting an application should open
>> /proc/$PID makes me really wonder if people actually want to use slow
>> and insecure applications designed this way.
> That's a separate point. Yes, gettid should have a wrapper, but *also*
> we should have an FD-based interface to processes, because outside
> specialized contexts (e.g., parent-child waiting), the traditional
> Unix process API really is impossible to use safely. But that's a
> separate ongoing discussion.

A descriptor-based API would not help glibc that much because there is
an expectation encoded into many C programs that the C library does not
keep permanently open descriptors for its own internal use.


 \ /
  Last update: 2018-11-11 11:41    [W:0.536 / U:0.440 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site