[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <877ehfdgzn.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2018 12:40:44 +0100
From: Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>
To: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Daniel Colascione <dancol@...gle.com>,
"Michael Kerrisk \(man-pages\)" <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Carlos O'Donell <carlos@...hat.com>,
"libc-alpha\@sourceware.org" <libc-alpha@...rceware.org>
Subject: Re: Official Linux system wrapper library?
* Dave Martin:
> Fair points, though this is rather what I meant by "sane essentials".
> Because there are strict limits on what can be done in the vDSO, it may
> be more bloat-resistant and more conservatively maintained.
>
> This might provide a way to push some dumb compatibility kludge code
> that receives little ongoing maintenance outside the privilege wall,
> whereas it has to sit in the kernel proper today.
>
> In theory we could opt to advertise new syscalls only via vDSO entry
> points, and not maintain __NR_xxx values for them (which may or may
> not upset ptrace users.) Anyway, I digress...
Is the vDSO available across all architectures? (I don't think we use
it on all architectures in glibc.)
If not, a vDSO-based approach would merely lead to even more variance
between architectures, which can't be a good thing.
Thanks,
Florian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists