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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <6599ad830804091943j1f8a4500w5eda7774adfba69f@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 9 Apr 2008 19:43:30 -0700
From:	"Paul Menage" <menage@...gle.com>
To:	sukadev@...ibm.com
Cc:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, "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

On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 7:38 PM,  <sukadev@...ibm.com> wrote:
>
>  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.
>

I thought that the consensus was that adding a new system call was
better than trying to force extensibility on to the existing
non-extensible system call.

But if we are adding a new system call, why not make the new one
extensible to reduce the need for yet another new call in the future?

Paul
--
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/