linux-kernel - sys_indirect or many syscalls?

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <480C33E2.7060101@redhat.com>
Date:	Sun, 20 Apr 2008 23:27:46 -0700
From:	Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:	kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: sys_indirect or many syscalls?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Linux,

will you please make a decision regarding sys_indirect?  There has been
no other proposal so the alternative is to add more syscalls.

This really is a problem.  For one instance, see

  http://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=443321

The problem is actually a socket call and we cannot reliably set the
CLOEXEC bit without massive program slowdowns.  This is just one example.

I still think the sys_indirect method is the best since it avoids bloat
in the number of system calls.

- --
➧ Ulrich Drepper ➧ Red Hat, Inc. ➧ 444 Castro St ➧ Mountain View, CA ❖
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkgMM+IACgkQ2ijCOnn/RHRwiQCfXzlb3ihLjJTfgEXIK9BObyvx
H6oAoJBRj4c8lfePA8+GWzRzJXSdss95
=pnY+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
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/