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
