linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] clone64() and unshare64() system calls

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 9 Apr 2008 19:38:18 -0700
From:	sukadev@...ibm.com
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, clg@...ibm.com, serue@...ibm.com,
	"David C. Hansen" <haveblue@...ibm.com>,
	Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>,
	Containers <containers@...ts.osdl.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] clone64() and unshare64() system calls

H. Peter Anvin [hpa@...or.com] wrote:
>> Yes, this was discussed before in the context of Pavel Emelyanov's patch
>> 	http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/1/16/109
>> along with sys_indirect().  While there was no consensus, it looked like
>> adding a new system call was better than open ended interfaces.
>
> That's not really an open-ended interface, it's just an expandable bitmap.

Yes, we liked such an approach earlier too and its conceivable that we
will run out of the 64-bits too :-)

But as Jon Corbet pointed out in the the thread above, it looked like
adding a new system call has been the "traditional" way of solving this
in Linux so far and there has been no consensus on a newer approach.

Sukadev
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/