linux-kernel - Re: futex(2) man page update help request

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: <53744767.8090307@gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 15 May 2014 06:49:43 +0200
From:	"Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@...il.com>
To:	Carlos O'Donell <carlos@...hat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
CC:	mtk.manpages@...il.com, Darren Hart <dvhart@...ux.intel.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@...hat.com>,
	"linux-man@...r.kernel.org" <linux-man@...r.kernel.org>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@...com>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: futex(2) man page update help request

On 05/15/2014 05:12 AM, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> On 05/14/2014 07:34 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 May 2014, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>>
>>> On 05/14/2014 03:03 PM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
>>>>> However, unless I'm sorely mistaken, the larger problem is that glibc
>>>>> removed the futex() call entirely, so these man pages don't describe
>>>>
>>>> I don't think futex() ever was in glibc--that's by design, and
>>>> completely understandable: no user-space application would want to
>>>> directly use futex(). (BTW, I mispoke in my earlier mail when I said I
>>>> wanted documentation suitable for "writers of library functions" -- I
>>>> meant suitable for "writers of *C library*".)
>>>
>>> I fully agree with Michael here.
>>>
>>> The futex() syscall was never exposed to userspace specifically because
>>> it was an interface we did not want to support forever with a stable ABI.
>>> The futex() syscall is an implementation detail that is shared between
>>> the kernel and the writers of core runtimes for Linux.
>>
>> Nonsense. 
> 
> What is nonsense?

I suspect there's a misunderstanding between worlds here. Thomas means
that the kernel ABI is stable. You mean, glibc does not want to have to
export an ABI that you have to support.

> I do not want to be responsible for the futex API by having glibc provide
> wrappers. That can't be nonsense since it's a glibc community decision to
> make.

See my above.

Cheers,

Michael

-- 
Michael Kerrisk
Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/
Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/
--
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/