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  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, 15 Jun 2014 10:05:47 -0700
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <>
To:	Rich Felker <>,
	Mikael Pettersson <>
CC:	Andy Lutomirski <>, Russ Cox <>,, Ian Taylor <>,, X86 ML <>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/2] __vdso_findsym

On 06/15/2014 07:35 AM, Rich Felker wrote:
> Arguably, it was a mistake for the kernel to expose a virtual ELF to
> begin with, and it should just have exposed a "lookup function by
> name" operation to begin with. Yes this can be done in userspace, but
> I see it more as a matter of "fixing a broken API design".

What the fsck are you smoking?  There is immense value in providing a
stable and very well-defined data structure, which also happens to be
what dynamic linkers already want to consume.  Providing a helper for
crippled libc applications has potential value.  Shaving a few hundred
bytes off static applications is a very weak argument, simply because it
is such a small fraction of the enormous cost of a static application,
and static applications are problematic in a number of other ways,
especially the lack of ability to fix bugs.

Treating the kernel as an ersatz dynamic library for "static"
applications is kind of silly -- after all, why not provide an entire
libc in the vdso?  I have actually seen people advocate for doing that.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists