linux-kernel - RE: setup() and odd Syscalls in Ancient History

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: <CAOviyajvO5W0=gJpcYd1VC3nWZ4YuHU7rmP1jN2+GMM33oW2gA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 21 Sep 2015 23:07:57 +1000
From:	Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>
To:	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: RE: setup() and odd Syscalls in Ancient History

Hi Linus,

Sorry for emailing you directly, but since you were the original
author and designer of this particular oddity, I though it would be
unlikely that anyone else would know the answer.

I was wondering if you could explain *why* setup() was a syscall in
early Linux? I understand that it did some ... odd things (one
function both freeing the initial memory and setting up the
filesystems, devices and mounting) which you obviously need to do in
init. But from what I can see (after digging out v0.01 from the tomb),
it was *never* used by userspace, which begs the question: why was it
a syscall in the first place?

I completely understand if you can't remember all of the technical
decisions you made in 1991, but this one really bugged me when I
landed upon the man page for this (now defunct) syscall. If you could
shed some light on this, I'd really appreciate it.

-- 
Aleksa Sarai (cyphar)
www.cyphar.com
--
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/