On Sun, 1 Aug 2021 at 09:28, Andrew Warkentin <[email protected]> wrote: > > I don't want to require Linux applications to use a specific patched > libc since that would create all kinds of compatibility issues. I'm > writing a general-purpose OS that is just as likely to be used on > desktops and servers as on embedded systems, and I want to support as > many Linux binaries as possible (ideally everything that doesn't > depend on certain types of kernel modules and doesn't manage > sessions/logins). Requiring a specific libc would significantly limit > compatibility. >
+1. Using a custom libc won't work for statically linked programs. > Wouldn't there be a risk that a Linux system call would present an > argument that happens to look like a capability and not get > intercepted if system calls were implemented by just catching the > existing invalid-syscall exceptions? > Not if you don't have any capabilities mapped into the address space. -- William Leslie Q: What is your boss's password? A: "Authentication", clearly Notice: Likely much of this email is, by the nature of copyright, covered under copyright law. You absolutely MAY reproduce any part of it in accordance with the copyright law of the nation you are reading this in. Any attempt to DENY YOU THOSE RIGHTS would be illegal without prior contractual agreement. _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
