linux-kernel - Re: Official Linux system wrapper library?

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: <85ce01c3-0704-b915-e591-437a051d371c@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 13 Nov 2018 10:15:39 -0500
From:   Carlos O'Donell <carlos@...hat.com>
To:     Joseph Myers <joseph@...esourcery.com>,
        Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>
Cc:     "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
        Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>,
        Daniel Colascione <dancol@...gle.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>,
        Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        "libc-alpha@...rceware.org" <libc-alpha@...rceware.org>
Subject: Re: Official Linux system wrapper library?

On 11/12/18 11:43 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Nov 2018, Florian Weimer wrote:
> 
>> People may have disappeared from glibc development who have objected to
>> gettid.  I thought this was the case with strlcpy/strlcat, but it was
>> not.
> 
> Well, I know of two main people who were objecting to the notion of adding 
> bindings for all non-obsolescent syscalls, Linux-specific if not suitable 
> for adding to the OS-independent GNU API, and neither seems to have posted 
> in the past year.
> 
>> At present, it takes one semi-active glibc contributor to block addition
>> of a system call.  The process to override a sustained objection has
>> never been used successfully, and it is a lot of work to get it even
>> started.
> 
> We don't have such a process.  (I've suggested, e.g. in conversation with 
> Carlos at the Cauldron, that we should have something involving a 
> supermajority vote of the GNU maintainers for glibc in cases where we're 
> unable to reach a consensus in the community as a whole.)
 
... and I need a good excuse to propose such a process :-)

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.