From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" Subject: Re: Official Linux system wrapper library? Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2018 09:35:06 -0500 Message-ID: <20181112143506.GC7377@thunk.org> References: <877ehjx447.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> <45cf58e0-909e-262c-5b9f-b91d62350a79@arm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <45cf58e0-909e-262c-5b9f-b91d62350a79@arm.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Szabolcs Nagy Cc: Daniel Colascione , Florian Weimer , nd , "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" , linux-kernel , Joel Fernandes , Linux API , Willy Tarreau , Vlastimil Babka , Carlos O'Donell , "libc-alpha@sourceware.org" List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 12:45:26PM +0000, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: > >> A lot of the new system calls lack clear specifications or are just > >> somewhat misdesigned. For example, pkey_alloc > > [snip] > >> getrandom still causes boot delays I'll note that what some people consider misdesigns, others consider "fix CVE's". Some people may consider it more important to avoid boot delays; others would consider internet-wide security problems, ala https://factorable.net to be higher priority. It's clear this is one area where I and some glibc developers have had a difference of opinion. The bigger problem is that if a single glibc developer is able to veto any new system call, maybe we *do* need to have a kernel-provided library which bypasses glibc.... - Ted