linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH] Cross Memory Attach v2 (resend)

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]

Message-Id: <20101126000903.df846d3e.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Fri, 26 Nov 2010 00:09:03 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	Christopher Yeoh <cyeoh@....ibm.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, Brice Goglin <Brice.Goglin@...ia.fr>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] Cross Memory Attach v2 (resend)

On Fri, 26 Nov 2010 09:06:24 +0100 Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:

> 
> * Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, 22 Nov 2010 12:28:47 +1030
> > Christopher Yeoh <cyeoh@....ibm.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > Resending just in case the previous mail was missed rather than ignored :-)
> > > I'd appreciate any comments....
> > 
> > Fear, uncertainty, doubt and resistance!
> > 
> > We have a bit of a track record of adding cool-looking syscalls and
> > then regretting it a few years later.  Few people use them, and maybe
> > they weren't so cool after all, and we have to maintain them for ever. 
> 
> They are often cut off at the libc level and never get into apps.
> 
> If we had tools/libc/ (mapped by the kernel automagically via the vDSO), where 
> people could add new syscall usage to actual, existing, real-life libc functions, 
> where the improvements could thus propagate into thousands of apps immediately, 
> without requiring any rebuild of apps or even any touching of the user-space 
> installation, we'd probably have _much_ more lively development in this area.
> 
> Right now it's slow and painful, and few new syscalls can break through the brick 
> wall of implementation latency, app adoption disinterest due to backwards 
> compatibility limitations and the resulting inevitable lack of testing and lack of 
> tangible utility.

Can't people use libc's syscall(2)?
--
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/