From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Greg KH Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] vfs: Define new syscall getumask. Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 10:09:25 +0900 Message-ID: <20160418010925.GA7800@kroah.com> References: <1460552272-15985-1-git-send-email-rjones@redhat.com> <2143735451.55767.1460561962122.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> <1736004700.56566.1460581285951.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> <20160414021348.GB16656@thunk.org> <57142C80.6070005@zytor.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <57142C80.6070005-YMNOUZJC4hwAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-api-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: "H. Peter Anvin" Cc: Theodore Ts'o , Mathieu Desnoyers , "Richard W.M. Jones" , linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Thomas Gleixner , mingo-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, Andrew Morton , luto-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org, viro-RmSDqhL/yNMiFSDQTTA3OLVCufUGDwFn@public.gmane.org, zab , emunson-JqFfY2XvxFXQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, "Paul E. McKenney" , Andrea Arcangeli , josh-iaAMLnmF4UmaiuxdJuQwMA@public.gmane.org, Pavel Emelyanov , sfr-3FnU+UHB4dNDw9hX6IcOSA@public.gmane.org, Milosz Tanski , rostedt , arnd-r2nGTMty4D4@public.gmane.org, ebiederm-aS9lmoZGLiVWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org, gorcunov , iulia manda21 , dave hansen , mguzik , adobriyan-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org, Davidlohr Bueso , linux-api , gorcunov-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org, fw@ List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 05:38:24PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > 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. And only 2 applications will continue to use it because no one wants to write syscall() wrappers for their individual applications, so it's a vicious cycle :( I really like the 'libinux' idea, did anyone every hack up a first-pass at this? And I'm guessing we have more syscalls now that would need to be added (like getrandom(), but that shouldn't be too difficult. thanks, greg k-h From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751451AbcDRBJa (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Apr 2016 21:09:30 -0400 Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:59419 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750997AbcDRBJ3 (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Apr 2016 21:09:29 -0400 Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 10:09:25 +0900 From: Greg KH To: "H. Peter Anvin" Cc: "Theodore Ts'o" , Mathieu Desnoyers , "Richard W.M. Jones" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner , mingo@redhat.com, Andrew Morton , luto@kernel.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, zab , emunson@akamai.com, "Paul E. McKenney" , Andrea Arcangeli , josh@joshtriplett.org, Pavel Emelyanov , sfr@canb.auug.org.au, Milosz Tanski , rostedt , arnd@arndb.de, ebiederm@xmission.com, gorcunov , iulia manda21 , dave hansen , mguzik , adobriyan@gmail.com, Davidlohr Bueso , linux-api , gorcunov@gmail.com, fw@deneb.enyo.de, Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] vfs: Define new syscall getumask. Message-ID: <20160418010925.GA7800@kroah.com> References: <1460552272-15985-1-git-send-email-rjones@redhat.com> <2143735451.55767.1460561962122.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> <1736004700.56566.1460581285951.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> <20160414021348.GB16656@thunk.org> <57142C80.6070005@zytor.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <57142C80.6070005@zytor.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.0 (2016-04-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 05:38:24PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > 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. And only 2 applications will continue to use it because no one wants to write syscall() wrappers for their individual applications, so it's a vicious cycle :( I really like the 'libinux' idea, did anyone every hack up a first-pass at this? And I'm guessing we have more syscalls now that would need to be added (like getrandom(), but that shouldn't be too difficult. thanks, greg k-h