lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Nov]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: Official Linux system wrapper library?
On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 6:24 PM Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On 11/10/18 2:20 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> > Also, what about the basic work of making sure our uapi header files can
> > actually be used untouched by a libc? That isn't the case these days as
> > the bionic maintainers like to keep reminding me. That might be a good
> > thing to do _before_ trying to add new things like syscall wrappers.
> I agree completely. There are many steps in the checklist to writing
> a new syscall, heck we should probably have a checklist!
>
> Socially the issue is difficult because the various communities only
> marginally share the same network of developers, care about different
> features, or the same features with different priorities.
>
> That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to integrate better. As was pointed
> out, various people from the userspace and toolchain communities are
> going to LPC to do just this.
>

if you all want my two cents, I think that we should approach this all
quite differently than trying to get glibc to add a wrapper for each
syscall. I think the kernel should contain a list or list of syscalls
along with parameter names, types, and numbers, and this should get
processed during the kernel build to produce a few different
artifacts:

- A machine-readable version of the same data in a stable format.
Tools like strace should be able to consume it.

- A library called, perhaps, libinux, or maybe a header-only library.
It should have a wrapper for *every* syscall, and they should be
namespaced. Instead of renameat2(), it should expose
linux_renameat2(). Ideally it would use the UAPI header types, but
void * wouldn't be so bad for pointers.

P.S. Does gcc even *have* the correct asm constraints to express
typeless syscalls? Ideally we'd want syscalls to have exactly the
same pointer escaping semantics as ordinary functions, so, if I do:

struct timeval tv;
/* typed expansion of linux_gettimeofday(&tv, NULL); */
asm volatile ("whatever" : "+m" (tv) : "D" (&tv));

it works. But if I want to use a generic wrapper that doesn't know
that the argument is a pointer, I do:

asm volatile ("whatever" :: "D" (&tv));

then gcc seems to not actually understand that the value pointed to by
&tv is modified by the syscall. glibc's syscall() function works
AFAICT because it's an external function, and gcc considers &tv to
have escaped and can't see the body of the syscall() function.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-11-12 06:47    [W:0.187 / U:1.380 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site