linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 00/11] Start porting UML to nolibc

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <m2plbf734e.wl-thehajime@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2025 10:05:53 +0900
From: Hajime Tazaki <thehajime@...il.com>
To: w@....eu
Cc: johannes@...solutions.net,
	hch@...radead.org,
	benjamin@...solutions.net,
	linux-um@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux@...ssschuh.net,
	linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
	acme@...hat.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	benjamin.berg@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/11] Start porting UML to nolibc


Hello Willy,

On Wed, 24 Sep 2025 12:32:17 +0900,
Willy Tarreau wrote:

> > just curious
> > 
> > - are those issues not happening in other libc implementation ? (e.g.,
> >   musl-libc)
> > - same question to nolibc: is there any possibility that nolibc will
> >   evolve as glibc does, and this evolution introduces the UML issues ?
> 
> Nolibc focuses on early boot programs. That does not mean it will never
> evolve towrards more generic usage but this remains unlikely, and in any
> case there's the goal will remain not to degrade the experience on the
> original target (early boot). That doesn't mean there will never be any
> breakage but we're doing our best to keep things in a clean and workable
> state. Regarding threads, it seems unlikely that they'll arrive any time
> soon. But if they did, assuming UML would by then be a long established
> user, we'd certainly find a solution together (even via build-time
> defines if needed).

thanks for the detail background of nolibc.
I understand nolibc will evolve with the carefully considering the
issues we faced with glibc.

> Hoping this answers your question.

definitely, thanks again.

-- Hajime