linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] vfs: Define new syscall getumask.

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: <57142C80.6070005@zytor.com>
Date:	Sun, 17 Apr 2016 17:38:24 -0700
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
	"Richard W.M. Jones" <rjones@...hat.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	mingo@...hat.com, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	luto@...nel.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, zab <zab@...hat.com>,
	emunson@...mai.com,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>, josh@...htriplett.org,
	Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>, sfr@...b.auug.org.au,
	Milosz Tanski <milosz@...in.com>,
	rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, arnd@...db.de,
	ebiederm@...ssion.com, gorcunov <gorcunov@...nvz.org>,
	iulia manda21 <iulia.manda21@...il.com>,
	dave hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
	mguzik <mguzik@...hat.com>, adobriyan@...il.com,
	Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
	linux-api <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>, gorcunov@...il.com,
	fw@...eb.enyo.de, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] vfs: Define new syscall getumask.

On 04/13/16 19:13, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> 
> One other reason to suggest using a /proc file is that you're not at
> the mercy of the glibc folks to wire up a new system call.  (Glibc has
> been refusing to wire up getrandom(2), for example.   Grrrr.....)
> 

This brings right back up the libinux idea.  There are continued
concerns about type compatibility, but saying "oh, use syscall(3)
instead" has worse properties than a Linux-kernel-team maintained
libinux.  Last I heard the glibc team had (reluctantly?) agreed to do
something to deal with linux-specific system calls, but last I heard
nothing had happened.  The last discussion I see on the glibc mailing
list dates back to November, and that thread seems to have died from
bikeshedding, again.

There aren't a *lot* of such system calls, but even in that thread the
"oh, only two applications need this, let them use syscall(3)" seems to
remain.

	-hpa