linux-kernel - Re: [DISCUSS] Making system calls more portable.

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:	Sun, 07 Jan 2007 10:16:29 +0100
From:	Rene Herman <rene.herman@...il.com>
To:	Amit Choudhary <amit2030@...oo.com>
CC:	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Making system calls more portable.

On 01/07/2007 10:07 AM, Amit Choudhary wrote:

> However, people may say that, implementing custom system calls is not
> advocated by linux. And I think it is not advocated precisely because
> of this reason that they are not portable.

True I guess. But do you want to live in a software environment where as 
a matter of course every distribution out there puts its "value-add" in 
custom system calls and creating a $DISTRIBUTION-only userspace? After 
all, if nothing uses their shiny new custom syscall, they might as well 
not add it. This would fragment Linux quite horribly and IMO cases where 
this happens should be _dis_ couraged, not encouraged by making it less 
problematic to survive the resulting mess.

Rene.
-
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/