Re: [PATCHv3 0/4] sys_indirect system call

dean gaudet
2007-11-20T14:11:27Z

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:

>
> * Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com> wrote:
>
> > I do see a problem, because some readers will take your example as a
> > reference, as it will probably sit in a page that
> > google^Wsearch_engines will bring at the top of search results for
> > next ten years or so.
> >
> > (I bet for "sys_indirect syscall" -> http://lwn.net/Articles/258708/ )
> >
> > Next time you post it, please warn users that it will break in some
> > years, or state clearly this should only be used internally by glibc.
>
> dont be silly, next time Ulrich should also warn everyone that running
> attachments and applying patches from untrusted sources is dangerous?
>
> any code that includes:
>
> fd = syscall (__NR_indirect, &r, &i, sizeof (i));
>
> is by definition broken and unportable in every sense of the word. Apps
> will use the proper glibc interfaces (if it's exposed).

as an application writer how do i access accept(2) with FD_CLOEXEC
functionality? will glibc expose an accept2() with a flags param? if
so... why don't we just have an accept2() syscall?

-dean